PRIVATE BUSINESS

Hbos Group Reorganisation Bill

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Iran

Michael Gove: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Iran.

Andrew MacKay: If he will make a statement on Iran's relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

David Ruffley: If he will make a statement on Iran's relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

David Amess: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Iran.

Shailesh Vara: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Iran.

Jack Straw: Iran's nuclear activities are of the greatest concern. On 4 February this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency board adopted by a large majority a resolution calling on Iran to restore full suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, but giving it until the March board before the Security Council became involved.
	Despite intensive diplomatic efforts by Russia, China and the United Kingdom, France and Germany, the EU3, Iran did not take that opportunity. Instead, Iran has moved in the wrong direction, suspending co-operation with the IAEA under the additional protocol, which it committed itself in October 2003 to sign and ratify. This backward move by the Iranian regime is a symptom of a wider deterioration in the political situation in Iran, which includes further restrictions on press freedom and human rights, support for terrorism and unacceptable hostility towards Israel.
	The IAEA director general's latest report said that it was a matter of concern that the nature of Iran's nuclear programmes had not been clarified after three years of intensive agency verification. The issue now moves to the Security Council. Our aim will be to use the council's political and legal powers to ensure that Iran takes the measures that the IAEA board of governors has deemed necessary. Iran must, among other steps, fully suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including so-called research and development. We expect council action to be in support of the IAEA's work, in stages, and also to be reversible according to Iranian reactions.
	Allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would be deeply damaging for stability in the region as a whole and for the non-proliferation system. We will intensify our efforts with our partners to ensure that that does not happen.

Michael Gove: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He will recall that he visited Tehran five times over the past five years as part of his policy of constructive interaction. Following those visits, the Iranian regime has increased its support for Hezbollah, stepped up its drive for a nuclear bomb, turned its country into the biggest prison for journalists in the middle east, backed forces in Iraq targeting British troops and pledged to wipe Israel off the map. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what precisely was constructive about that interaction?

Jack Straw: That was an elegantly phrased question, but the insinuation that the one had followed the other is not entirely correct. I remind the hon. Gentleman that my five visits to Iran were all during the presidency of President Khatami, who was elected in what we think were free and democratic elections in 1987 and 2002, and when Iran was moving away from the confrontational approach that had been followed before. I am quite unapologetic about those visits and the efforts that we were making. I am also unapologetic about the work that I have undertaken with France and Germany to try to resolve this issue by peaceful and diplomatic means. Although it has been frustrating, I am clear that it has been far better than the alternative and that without this engagement between these three major European countries, we would never have got the consensus against Iran and for the non-proliferation regime that we achieved, for example, among the IAEA board of governors on 4 February.

Andrew MacKay: Following Iran's formal rejection of Russia's proposals for a joint venture operation and following the Foreign Secretary's welcome speech yesterday, can we conclude that he is nearer to Vice-President Cheney than he was before?

Jack Straw: I have always enjoyed good relations with Vice-President Cheney, but I speak for the British Government, not the American Government.

David Ruffley: The Foreign Secretary has told us that the UN Security Council will be able to act to reinforce the authority of the IAEA. While he has ruled out military sanctions, can he reassure us today that he will back economic sanctions, should Iran continue to flout its clear international obligations?

Jack Straw: I have indeed ruled out military action. I have not ruled out the use of article 41 measures, which include sanctions and which will be before the Security Council if they reach a resolution, and Iran understands that. I shall not speculate about which measures might be appropriate or for which we could achieve consensus, but the actions of the Iranian Government are already imposing sanctions on the people of Iran. There has been a flight of capital out of the country, a fall in the Tehran stock exchange, when other stock exchanges have been buoyant, and, above all, a flight of the most important resource of any country—the brightest and best young people in Iran, and that is likely to continue as long as the regime is in power.

David Amess: Now that the policy of appeasement has been seen to have been so disastrous, resulting in the dreadful Iranian President, does the Foreign Secretary accept that a firm signal of disapproval should be sent to Tehran? Will he now consider targeted sanctions, such as those suggested, of a travel ban and freezing the assets of senior officials?

Jack Straw: The most important thing that we have to do is to maintain a strong and effective international consensus in respect of Iran. Nothing would please the Iranians more than to see the Security Council and the world split between Europe and the United States on the one hand with Russia, China and the non-aligned movement on the other. At each stage, the Iranians have calculated that they would be able to secure that split, while actually at each stage the consensus against them has strengthened, which is why, despite all the rhetoric, we know that they are very worried about the situation.
	On appropriate measures under article 41, the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not anticipating which measures we might be able to take. That will depend above all on gaining a majority and a consensus among the permanent five of the Security Council, but Tehran needs to take notice of the fact that having had the tacit acquiescence of the Russian Federation at the beginning of the process, Iran has now secured its active hostility.

Shailesh Vara: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has held with other Gulf states, with a view to putting pressure on Iran to sever its links with terrorist groups such as Hezbollah?

Jack Straw: I have held many discussions with the other Gulf states. They are concerned about Iran's approach in respect of their own Shi'a populations and in respect of support for terrorism. Above all, they share the suspicions of the board of governors of the IAEA that Iran may indeed be using its nuclear facilities to develop a nuclear weapons capability and they are deeply concerned about that.

David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend see any role whatever for a military solution to the problem and, if so, at what point?

Jack Straw: No, and I have made that clear.

Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this crisis has to be handled carefully and long, and that talk of military action or of imminent sanctions is unwise until we have maintained unity in the Security Council?

Jack Straw: That is very wise advice; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the situation is frustrating, but those who want precipitate action need to think about the alternatives, which I believe would be far, far worse.

David Lepper: Can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment and representations his Department has made in respect of members of minority religious groups in Iran since its current Government came to power and in particular since the death, on 15 December 2005, of a Baha'i, Mr. Mahrami in Yazd prison?

Jack Straw: The human rights situation has got worse since President Ahmadinejad came to power. The position of the Baha'is has always been precarious and has got worse. We continue to make strong representations to the Iranians about that, both directly and through the European Union.

Wayne David: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the British Government have made representations to the Iranian Government about alleged members of al-Qaeda who are being held in Iran?

Jack Straw: We have, and the Iranians are as ambiguous about al-Qaeda as they are about so much else. They recognise that al-Qaeda is an historic enemy of the Iranian regime, yet they have so far failed fully to co-operate with other members of the international community to ensure that members of al-Qaeda are brought to justice.

Michael Moore: Iran's non-compliance with its international obligations is extremely serious and completely unacceptable. Amidst the tough negotiations, we certainly welcome the Foreign Secretary's restatement of his view that military action against Iran is inconceivable. Can he tell us whether the Prime Minister and the United States Secretary of State would use the same language, and how does the Foreign Secretary believe that the recent nuclear agreement between the United States and India will affect the Iranian position?

Jack Straw: First, may I offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his elevation as a Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman? [Hon. Members: "Mini Ming!"] I think that he is quite a big lad myself, and well able to look after himself.
	I have set out the British Government's position on military action. I cannot speak—I do not presume to do so—for any foreign Government, but I can say, because it is a matter of record, that although no Commander in Chief of the United States, the President, ever rules out options, in practice, military action is not on the American Government's agenda any more than it is on anyone else's.

Gavin Strang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that every Government in the world should regret the fact that Iran has allowed this issue to move from the IAEA to the Security Council? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that it is Government policy that any action against Iran will be authorised by the UN Security Council?

Jack Straw: Any action that was taken by the international community would have to be authorised by the Security Council, and I speak for the United Kingdom. The IAEA operates under the Security Council's general supervision, and it is under its statutes that we have reported Iran to the Security Council.
	I am afraid that I failed to answer the last of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) in relation to India. India was not a member of non-proliferation treaty regime. It acquired nuclear weapons. We in the United Kingdom were co-sponsors of a resolution calling on India and Pakistan to desist. It is a reality that the United States and we have sought to ensure that there are agreements with India by which it comes at least partially—I hope, in time, fully—into the non-proliferation regime; but, interestingly, Iran has never raised the issue of India, because of course Iran continues to deny that it has any nuclear weapons ambitions whatsoever.

William Hague: Given that all diplomatic efforts to date to dissuade the Iranian leadership from pursuing its nuclear ambitions have failed, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Security Council's response must be particularly robust and determined to have any chance of success? Does he agree that an essential part of that must be a comprehensive embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment to Iran, including all nuclear and missile technology?

Jack Straw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the more robust and determined the response, the quicker that this issue can be resolved satisfactorily for everyone and, above all, for the Iranian people. It will be hard going in the Security Council. However, I am heartened by the fact that it was hard going to get a majority in the board of governors to report Iran to the Security Council, but after a lot of negotiation, we got China, Russia, India, Yemen, Sri Lanka, Egypt and Brazil all in favour, so I remain optimistic.
	On precise measures, we anticipate an incremental approach. Initially, there will be a presidential statement by the Security Council. We hope that that works. If it does not, we will look for a Security Council resolution, which may not contain measures; but if that does not work, we are considering the possibility of there being measures. The right hon. Gentleman makes a proposal for inclusion in that, which, of course, we will consider carefully.

William Hague: The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that the use of force against Iran was inconceivable—he has said pretty much the same again today—but on 7 February the Prime Minister said:
	"You can never say never in any of these situations."
	Has the Prime Minister now changed his view? If so, what has changed in the interim to change his view? In the interests of bringing maximum pressure to bear and of acting in concert with our allies, is it not a mistake entirely to rule out, however far in the future, the use of force?

Jack Straw: There is no distinction in the British Government's approach. No one is talking about military action. Military action will not resolve the issue. There is no casus belli that I can see. If Iran were to attack one of its neighbours, plainly the situation would change and the issue of a Security Council resolution would not arise, but in the real world in which we are living, where we are trying to resolve this issue, I do not see that there is a place for military action. I have heard no one who believes that there is a place for military action. Given that that is the case and, frankly, given the understandable anxieties of the House, as well as the country, about military action against the background of Iraq, it is very important that we are straight with the British public about what is likely to be used and what is not likely to be used.

John McFall: How much consideration has been given to Mohamed el-Baradei's suggestion that member states establish fuel banks with countries with nuclear reactors, thereby ridding non-weapon states of the need to acquire the fuel-processing technology that can be used to produce weapons-grade material? Under such a scheme, if countries comply with their non-proliferation obligations they will receive that material.

Jack Straw: A great deal of consideration has been given to that proposal, which fits in with proposals by the American Government. I spelt out to the Iranians the fact that I understand their anxiety about being wholly reliant on one supplier—in this case, Russia—for fuel, which is why we internationally have told Iran that we would be willing for an international guarantee to be given whereby the Russian supply or any alternative supply would be guaranteed. I very much hope that it will accept that offer.

Darfur

Nadine Dorries: If he will make a statement on the situation in Darfur.

Chris Mullin: What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Darfur; and if he will make a statement.

Jack Straw: The security situation in Darfur remains serious, with 3.5 million people still requiring humanitarian assistance. The United Kingdom has led the international response and we are among the largest providers of aid. I delivered a strong message to the peace talks that I attended in Abuja last month. We recently announced a further £20 million for the African Union mission in Sudan, and we are now pushing for its early replacement by a stronger United Nations force. We were instrumental in securing the investigation by the International Criminal Court, and in New York we are proposing names for United Nations sanctions.

Nadine Dorries: Given that the African Union is determined to persist with its mission in Darfur rather than hand over control to the United Nations as many in the international community had hoped, and given that every month thousands of people are still dying as a result of disease and violence, does the Minister think that £20 million is enough additional support for the African Union? Are those sufficient resources for it to continue its mandate, or does it need more to fulfil it?

Jack Straw: It is sufficient for the time being. The African Union's decision was a curate's egg, but we judged it to be more, rather than less, helpful in moving the African Union towards acceptance of a United Nations mandate, as it has reaffirmed its support for the principle of transition to the UN, welcomed the Security Council launch of contingency planning, commissioned AU-UN work on the transition, and called for an end toincitement by the Sudanese Government of demonstrations against the United Nations. It is a controversial issue—it is controversial within the new Sudanese Government—but the presence of a United Nations force is the best prospect for properly securing peace in Darfur, and we are concentrating all our efforts on securing that end.

Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Kofi Annan and Mark Malloch Brown take the view that to be effective any UN force must include American and European troops on the ground? How realistic is that view, and is he aware that the Sudanese Government are boasting that they have seen off the UN? If the Sudanese will not co-operate, has not the time come to ask the International Criminal Court to unveil the results of its war crimes indictments?

Jack Straw: I am aware that there is anxiety in the UN secretariat about logistical support that the United States and the UK could provide but which few other countries could provide. On the other hand, we must ensure that any troops who are posted are acceptable and know the situation, so detailed discussions are under way in the secretariat with the UN peacekeeping directorate and the African Union. A way through can be found, but the crucial thing is to put those blue-helmeted troops on the ground in Darfur in greater numbers. The present situation is absurd, as troops are not doing a great deal in the south of Sudan. The principle has been accepted in a place where they are not particularly needed, but they cannot transfer to the west of the country where they are needed. The Sudanese Government are resistant to the idea of foreign troops—we all accept that—but we have sought to persuade them to understand and appreciate that the only real hope of peace in Darfur is an effective international peacekeeping force alongside a more effective peace-making process in Abuja.

Sandra Gidley: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Salah Abdallah Gosh, Sudan's director of national security, was issued a visa, ostensibly for medical purposes. That gentleman has been implicated by a United Nations panel in relation to war crimes. What measures are being taken by the Government to ensure that all international bodies are given the support necessary to end killings in Darfur and bring the perpetrators to justice?

Jack Straw: I cannot comment on the particular case that the hon. Lady raises. I am happy to write to her about that and place a copy in the Library of the House. On backing for the International Criminal Court generally, it was as a result of British diplomacy that we got the Security Council resolution—the first work of the ICC in respect of Sudan—and we have actively backed all its work subsequently to identify the perpetrators and to bring them to justice.

David Drew: The situation in Darfur is grave, but it has been grave for many months. We must find a way of bringing many more troops into the area. There are those who say that the only way to step up troop numbers and to get the UN fully engaged is through NATO being engaged. Is that a realistic proposition, and if not, what is the answer?

Jack Straw: I know that my hon. Friend has been to Darfur recently and has great expertise on the situation. The point is the same as that raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) a moment ago. There is a great deal of talk about the high level of expertise in NATO member states, including particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. That has to be balanced against the acceptability of such expertise in Darfur. All I can say is that discussions about that are continuing.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: At the Labour party conference in 2001, the Prime Minister described Africa as
	"a scar on the conscience of the world."
	Since then the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and Sudan has got distinctly worse. Some estimates put the number of displaced people at 3 million, and those who are starving and homeless at another 3 million, with 200,000 refugees crossing the border into Chad. Now we hear that Libya is supporting the Government of Sudan in effectively vetoing any further engagement by NATO troops. What more can the international community do, or is it content to walk by on the other side of the road and watch one of the worst human crises in the 21st century evolve?

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. We must stay heavily engaged there. We are doing a great deal. We cannot take over the government of Sudan. In the end, we need the acquiescence of the Government of Sudan for any troops that go into that country. Although I note what the hon. Gentleman says about Libya and some other north African states not being desperately constructive, the other side of that is that under the very sound leadership of President Obasanjo, the former chairman of the African Union, to whom I spoke about the matter less than a week ago, and many of his colleagues, the African Union has shifted. It has finally understood that it must take responsibility for the scandalous situation which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has displaced 3.5 million people in the heart of Africa. All of us have to stay engaged and increase our activity there.

Eddie McGrady: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the International Monetary Fund has just concluded an agreement with the Sudanese Government for an IMF-monitored economic growth policy? Could the implementation of that policy be used as a pressure mechanism to impress on the Sudanese Government the urgent need for the civil war to be brought to a close and, more immediately, for human rights abuses to be brought to an end?

Jack Straw: I do not have all the details of the International Monetary Fund arrangement, but it is worth bearing in mind that two peace processes have taken place in Sudan. The north-south peace process led to a Government of national unity, so progress has been made and the situation is far better than it was a few years ago, and I believe that the IMF arrangements were made in respect of that process. The IMF always imposes conditions, which are principally economic, but I shall follow up my hon. Friend's suggestion and write to him.

European Constitution

Ann Winterton: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the future of the European constitution.

Douglas Alexander: Last June, the European Council agreed to undertake a period of reflection on the draft constitutional treaty. I regularly discuss questions related to the future of Europe with our European Union counterparts, and recent discussions have focused primarily on the policy priorities for the European Union, such as economic reform and energy security.

Ann Winterton: Will the Minister confirm that all EU treaties fall outwith the royal prerogative, and that they, including any future regurgitated constitutional treaty, can be ratified only by an Act of Parliament and that in those matters Parliament remains supreme?

Douglas Alexander: We have had a number of European treaties, so the process by which they are ratified is fairly standard. However, the particular set of circumstances in relation to the draft constitutional treaty meant that a clear undertaking was given that included in the ratification process for the draft constitutional treaty not only ratification by parliamentary means, but a vote of the people of the United Kingdom.

Gisela Stuart: Will the Minister assure the House that the UK Government will not go down the route suggested by the French Government, by which parts I and II of constitution would be ratified and the commitment to hold a referendum would be evaded?

Douglas Alexander: I have seen some of the speculation to which my hon. Friend has alluded. It is clear from our discussions with our European partners in recent weeks and months both that it is necessary to continue the period of reflection and that it is appropriate for the focus in the coming European Council to be on not only those institutional questions, but, as we have long argued, jobs and growth for the European Union.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Minister recall the European Court of Justice case last September that required member states to impose criminal sanctions in support of EU directives, even if those member states vote against those EU directives? Since 21 of the 25 member states opposed that case, what is he doing to reverse that extension of EU power, or is he happy to see criminal laws changed by the EU through majority voting in defiance of the wishes of Parliament and the Government?

Douglas Alexander: On the right hon. Gentleman's view about the European Court of Justice, I accept that if we are part of the European Union, there should be a means by which the rules are enforced within the European Union. However, we have made our views clear in relation to the particular case to which he has referred, and I will make sure that a letter is sent to him confirming the position.

Keith Vaz: A period of reflection is wise on a constitution that the Foreign Secretary has frequently described as being in limbo somewhere between heaven and hell. It is also correct that issues on which member states agree can be advanced as part of the overall reform agenda, which Britain has been proud of leading in Europe in the past nine years. Will the Minister give an assurance that we will move forward on those issues where reform is possible?

Douglas Alexander: Given a previous appearance at Foreign Office questions, I will resist the temptation further to elaborate on the Catholic theology of limbo. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether it was more incongruous that I was asked the question or that I, as a Scottish Presbyterian, endeavoured to answer it. We have long argued that there should be a sensible set of rules to reflect a European Union of 25 member states—it will soon be 27 member states—which is why we supported the draft constitutional treaty. However, that matter is clearly delineated from the commitment that we made at the time of the draft constitutional treaty, which stated that if the draft constitutional treaty is to be ratified in the United Kingdom, it will depend on a referendum involving the people of the United Kingdom.

Graham Brady: The Minister knows that it is not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) who is concerned about the European Court of Justice. The current holder of the EU presidency, Chancellor Schuessel, has said that the ECJ has systematically expanded European competencies in the past few years, even in areas in which there is no Community law. Does the Minister agree with Chancellor Schuessel, and will the matter be on the agenda at next week's summit?

Douglas Alexander: First, on the agenda for next week's summit, the principal focus will be on jobs and growth in the European Union. There will also be an update on the work on energy security. Recently, the European Commission published a Green Paper following our Hampton Court summit. So, there will be a heavy agenda at the coming European Council later this month.
	On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point about the European Court of Justice, we have made clear our opposition to certain rulings of the European Court of Justice in the past, but we accept the principle that there needs to be a means by which the rules and laws in the European Union are enforced.

Lebanon

Andrew Love: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Lebanon.

Kim Howells: The Lebanese Government are committed to addressing political, economic and security sector reform. During his visit to Lebanon in January, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated that the UK stands ready to assist the Lebanese Government to implement those reforms.
	The UK supports full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1655, which promote the sovereignty of Lebanon, and encourages all parties in Lebanon to assist with their implementation.

Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the optimism of the so-called cedar revolution has been somewhat dissipated in the past few months, that the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories is a setback and further destabilises the region, that as a result our objectives should be, as he says, the implementation of Security Council resolutions, and that we should not use Lebanon as some sort of proxy to fight battles in other countries in the middle east?

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend, as chairman of the all-party Lebanon group, has taken a great interest in the affairs of that troubled country. His words are wise. Lebanon has suffered enough over the past 50 years. It should not be a battlefield for other wars fought by proxy in that country and I agree with him entirely.

Keith Simpson: Does the Minister not think that there is an irony in the fact that, at a time when Lebanon has largely been freed from Syrian influence, the vacuum has now been filled indirectly by the Iranians and their support of Hezbollah? Does he have any evidence that the Iranian support of Hezbollah poses a direct terrorist threat against UK personnel and interests in that area?

Kim Howells: We have not heard of specific threats, but I understand full well the hon. Gentleman's point. The area is very unstable. We have a great many people working out there, mostly in the private sector, and we have a duty to be very aware of the danger posed to them by Hezbollah and other groups such as Palestinian rejectionist groups, many of which are financed directly by Iran and the Revolutionary Guard. We know that Hezbollah itself is not acting like a proper democratic and political party. It has not laid down its arms and shows no intention of doing so.

Zimbabwe

Nicholas Winterton: What recent discussions he has had with his African nation counterparts on the situation in Zimbabwe.

Ian Pearson: We deplore the situation in Zimbabwe. The widespread humanitarian suffering there is caused by misgovernance and bad policies. We regularly raise the situation with African leaders. My noble Friend Lord Triesman of Tottenham, Minister with responsibility for Africa, discussed the issue with a range of South African Government leaders during his visit from 2 to 4 March. African leaders play a vital role in seeking an end to Zimbabwe's nightmare regime.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister really think that the other Governments in Africa, including that led by President Thabo Mbeki, are fully aware of the suffering of the Zimbabwean people? Are they fully aware that hundreds of thousands have been dispossessed by Mr. Mugabe's Administration, that hundreds of thousands are dying of hunger, that some 200,000 have already died from hunger, that there is growing anger in the country that is coming from all population groups, and that there is growing disillusionment with the United Nations, which does not appear to have the courage to take action to end genocide? Will the Government seek to take action, either unilaterally, with other countries in Africa, or through the United Nations, to stop that grotesque killing of innocent people?

Ian Pearson: I think that South Africa and other African nations are well aware of the situation in Zimbabwe. South Africa suffers more than any other country from the Zimbabwean crisis. As a former economist, I must say that the regime, to my reckoning, has got to be close to economic collapse, with inflation rates of 1,000 per cent. and an unemployment rate in the region of 80 per cent. It is clear that the regime is failing, and there is more that African countries can do to bring pressure on it, including supporting the UK and others in discussions in the United Nations.

Lindsay Hoyle: Of course we welcome what the Minister says, but the problem is that year after year we keep getting the same message. The reality is that something has got to be done. The economy is ruined and the agricultural policy is in tatters, and there is no future for the people of Zimbabwe with a gangster in charge. What can we do, and when are we going to do it?

Ian Pearson: I share my hon. Friend's sense of frustration at what is happening in Zimbabwe and the complete reluctance and implacable hostility of the regime to do anything about the suffering of its people. Under our chairmanship, Zimbabwe was discussed for the third time at the UN Security Council on 19 December. Such attention is justified by the scale of the suffering that is clearly going on in Zimbabwe. We will continue to work with our partners in New York to ensure that Zimbabwe remains on the Security Council's agenda, and we want to press for a Security Council resolution.

Malcolm Rifkind: A few moments ago, the Foreign Secretary praised the African Union for becoming involved in what he rightly described as the scandalous situation in Darfur. Will the Minister equally condemn both the African Union and the South African Government for failing to apply similar courage with regard to Zimbabwe?

Ian Pearson: I think that I have made it clear that the Government believe that African countries could and should be doing more. Many share our concerns, and we have seen President Obasanjo, President Mbeki, former President Chissano and others trying to persuade Mugabe to change track. The simple fact of the matter is that when Lord Triesman talks to them, they reply that Mugabe does not listen to them either. I agree that the situation is terrible, but it is important that we all do what we can to exert international pressure on the regime to change for the good of its people.

Arms Trade

Mary Creagh: What his Department's strategy is for ensuring that negotiations for an international arms trade treaty can begin in 2006.

Jack Straw: An international treaty on the arms trade was one of the foreign policy pledges in our manifesto for last year's general election. We are working to build the consensus needed to start the process for a treaty at the United Nations. In 2005, I am pleased to tell the House, we secured support for such an arms treaty from our partners in both the EU and the Commonwealth.

Mary Creagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. He will be aware that the treaty is vital if we are to ensure that there is a level international playing field for the UK defence industry and to stop arms from falling into the hands of human rights abusers and indiscriminate killers. What discussions has he had with not only other Government Departments, but countries that have been identified as blocker states? What discussions has he had with colleagues in the House to ensure that there is support for such a treaty across the House?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her interest and concern. There is no party monopoly on the issue whatsoever because there is wide support across the House. She is absolutely right to point out that it is precisely the countries that are resisting such a treaty that show why it is needed the most. Many of the conflicts about which we talked earlier in today's Question Time have been fuelled by an unregulated trade in not only small arms, but medium-sized arms. I have held many discussions about the matter and I raise it with all Foreign Ministers whenever I meet them. As I said, it is significant that we now have active support from the European Union—we achieved that during our presidency—and more than 50 members of the Commonwealth.

Crispin Blunt: A rather notable absentee from those who were giving active support is the United States of America. One has to ask precisely what point there is in a huge amount of official and ministerial effort going towards trying to get this treaty if there is no prospect of the United States being a party to it. Even if it were, if it treated it in the manner in which it treated the extradition treaty with this country, what point is there?

Jack Straw: I have had many discussions with the United States and those will continue. The Administration—it would apply to any Administration—faces a difficulty about a possible collision between any international treaty and the right of American citizens under the second amendment of the constitution in respect of what happens internally in the United States. We have to find a way of navigating through that. The American Government are as concerned as any other responsible Government about the unregulated trade in small arms fuelling these conflicts; and in practice, the American Government are the biggest donor in terms of support for the United Nations and other aid programmes when it comes to resolving them.

David Taylor: Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it helps or hinders our role as honest brokers trying to fire up the international arms trade treaty talks that we have at the heart of government several hundred civil servants, paid for by the taxpayer, who are on free loan to the arms companies that promote the sale of arms and armaments to certain regimes, a few of which are very unsavoury by any standards?

Jack Straw: There is no inconsistency between our support for the British defence industries and our support for an international arms trade treaty. I can say to my hon. Friend that our system of arms control in this country is one of the most rigorous in the world. It is adjudicated by the Quadripartite Committee on Strategic Export Controls, a powerful Committee that is made up of four of the Select Committees of this House. We are now in a situation where every quarter we give the Quad Committee real-time information about every arms control licence that we issue, as well as some of those that we reject.

Darfur

Stewart Jackson: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Darfur.

Ian Pearson: There has recently been further fighting in Darfur between the forces of the Government of Sudan and rebel groups, as well as between different militias and tribal groupings. There have been attacks on civilians, humanitarian workers and the African Union monitoring mission, and the general level of banditry remains high. We call on all the parties to respect the ceasefire and reach an early political settlement. We are taking the actions outlined earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Stewart Jackson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), does the Minister think that it is acceptable that the President of Libya has a de facto veto on NATO involvement in enforcing the UN mandate in Darfur?

Ian Pearson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, this is clearly a matter for discussion in the United Nations. Let me re-emphasise that we are very concerned about the security situation. In a speech in Abuja on 14 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it very clear to all the parties that they need to make urgent efforts to achieve a sustained ceasefire. That remains our hope and our position.

Joint Economic and Trade Committee

Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the current work programme of the Joint Economic and Trade Committee.

Ian Pearson: The Joint Economic and Trade Committee is a bilateral mechanism for businesses to raise issues of concern for action by the Indian and UK Governments. It aims to encourage the Indian Government to open more sectors to foreign investment and to increase trade and investment opportunities for British business. Indian and British businesses are participating in working groups for agribusiness, accountancy services, health care, hi-tech clusters, legal and financial services and infrastructure.

Peter Luff: When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was in India last week, we saw for ourselves the huge enthusiasm that exists in the Indian business community to build and deepen trade and investment relations between our two countries. We also saw the dignified response of the Indian Government to terrorist atrocities in Varanasi. Does the Minister agree that one of the most effective contributions that we can make to answering the terrorists is to signal our determination to do all that we can to build and deepen our relationships with the fastest-growing democracy in the world?

Ian Pearson: I agree and I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to discuss trade in India shortly. He is right that we must conduct more trade, which is surely the best message that we can convey to India. We are doing that through the Indo-British Partnership Network. Recently, I was in India with a strong business delegation and improvements are taking place. However, I am not satisfied. It is a little like England in the second test—our batting performance was poor. We need to do better, and I am sure that we will do better in future.

Angus Robertson: Does the Minister accept that the Scotch whisky industry is seriously affected by the penal rates of duty and import tax that the Indian authorities impose? What are he, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry doing to try to ameliorate the position?

Ian Pearson: I agree that the Scotch whisky industry is unfairly penalised by duty rates. I have raised the matter directly with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and my opposite number. We have made regular submissions about it. We hope that, as part of the World Trade Organisation negotiations, there will be a reduction in tariffs not only for Scotch whisky, but for other products.

Ethiopia

Julie Morgan: What recent discussions he has had with the Ethiopian Government on disturbances in the country.

Ian Pearson: We remain concerned about the situation in Ethiopia. We have called on all sides to exercise restraint, avoid confrontation and violence, and respect the law.
	Ministers and officials raise our concerns regularly. Since December, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development, and my noble Friend Lord Triesman of Tottenham, who is Minister for Africa, have all discussed developments with the Ethiopian Prime Minister personally.

Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the UK Government to continue to work closely with the Ethiopian Government to encourage more transparent democracy in the country? I have recently returned from Ethiopia where I viewed the problems and human rights abuses, but also the progress towards meeting the millennium development goals. We should continue to work closely with the Government there.

Ian Pearson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her dedication to and interest in Ethiopia. The Government are concerned about the loss of life in the June and November disturbances and we want to work closely with the Ethiopian Government to ensure that they are aware of our views about the importance of a transparent, prompt and impartial inquiry. We want Prime Minister Meles to agree to international jurists observing the trial. We also want the trial to be conducted fairly, quickly and transparently. There are several serious issues to consider, and I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her experiences on her recent visit.

Zimbabwe

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet his EU counterparts to discuss EU sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Ian Pearson: At the 30 January General Affairs Council, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary joined his EU colleagues in renewing sanctions against Zimbabwe for a further year. That decision reflected the EU's strong concern about the human rights situation and failure of governance in Zimbabwe. We remain in close touch with our EU partners to maintain a firm international response to the crisis.

Henry Bellingham: We heard earlier about the spineless attitude of neighbouring countries to Zimbabwe. They appear terrified of Mugabe. Although sanctions have been in place for several years, Zimbabwean officials and their families still travel to Europe. Furthermore, does the Minister know that Mugabe has travelled to Europe on five occasions? What more can be done? Is the hon. Gentleman genuinely saying that Her Majesty's Government cannot do more to help the people of that tragic country?

Ian Pearson: On the point about the stance of African countries, I have nothing further to add. However, the hon. Gentleman's comments are not helpful. He claims that EU sanctions are ineffective, but they place genuine pressure on the regime. They have the support of the democratic Opposition and the non-governmental organisation community in Zimbabwe. Mugabe and his cohorts detest the restrictions that are imposed on their movements. The hon. Gentleman mentioned potential loopholes. Standard exemptions enable travel to the EU in a few, narrowly defined cases, but overall the travel ban works and puts pressure on the regime.

Gregory Campbell: What assistance are the Government offering to the opposition parties in Zimbabwe that are taking such a courageous and noble stand against the excesses of the Mugabe regime?

Ian Pearson: We talk on a regular basis with the Movement for Democratic Change and the various elements within it. In addition to putting pressure on the regime to change, the key thing that we do is to provide humanitarian assistance to the people in Zimbabwe who are being disadvantaged by that completely odious regime. We will continue to do that through the Department for International Development, because it is important work and it is helping to save people's lives.

West Bank

Kerry McCarthy: What assessment he has made of the economic impact of settler expansion in the west bank; and if he will make a statement.

Kim Howells: Settlement expansion—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I have never got this far down my crib book before. Settlement expansion has meant an increase in checkpoints and road closures in the west bank. The barrier circling settlements east of Jerusalem restricts movement for residents between the west bank and East Jerusalem. These factors are damaging the Palestinian economy. Settlements are illegal under international law. The road map is clear that Israel should freeze all settlement construction, and we continue to urge Israel to route the barrier away from occupied land.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank the Secretary of State for agreeing to make a statement in a few minutes' time. When I was in the occupied territories as an observer for the recent Palestinian elections, I was particularly concerned to see the work that had been done to pave the way for building E1, the economic zone that will link the huge settlement of Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem, effectively cutting the west bank in two and completely destroying its territorial contiguity. Can my hon. Friend assure me that we are putting pressure on the Israeli Government to halt all building work on E1?

Kim Howells: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to put pressure on the Israeli Government. I visited East Jerusalem recently, and I saw the disruption to people's lives that that barrier is causing; it is very severe in some cases. We agree, as we have to, that Israel has a right to self-defence and to protect itself against suicide bombers, but building a barrier on occupied land is contrary to international law. We continue to say to Israel that if it is going to build it, it should build it along the green line and not on Palestinian land.

Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to deal with the Palestinian-Israeli problem is for the Palestinians to enter into negotiations with Israel to set up a Palestinian state on the basis of a two-state solution? Does he also agree that, to enable that to happen, Hamas must accept the existence of Israel unconditionally and permanently?

Kim Howells: Yes, indeed. I agree with that.

Turkey

Meg Hillier: When he last visited Turkey to discuss human rights; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last visited Turkey on 25 January 2006 and held talks with Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Gul on a number of issues, including human rights and the importance of continued reforms. It would be unworthy of me to omit at this stage mention of the fact that on that occasion my right hon. Friend was also awarded by  the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association the 2005 Bosphorus prize for European understanding.

Meg Hillier: I recently had the privilege of meeting the Mayor of Batman when he was on a visit to Hackney—[Interruption.] Batman in Turkey. He was visiting Hackney and meeting Kurdish compatriots. Following the Foreign Secretary's meetings with the Turkish Government, what words of comfort does my right hon. Friend have for Kurds who are concerned about human rights abuses of their compatriots in Turkey?

Douglas Alexander: I assure the House that I have never had any difficulty drawing a distinction between Hackney and Gotham City. On the substantive question that my hon. Friend has raised, those of us who want an improvement of human rights in Turkey, in particular for the Kurdish minority, have taken heart from the opening of accession talks on 3 October. Many commentators have recognised that while some progress has already been made in relation to the Kurdish community, the very spotlight that the process towards accession to the European Union holds out is the strongest prospect for further progress.

Anne McIntosh: May I join the Minister in his remarks on progress towards Turkey's accession? What progress has there been towards peaceful reconciliation with the Kurdish minority and will he ensure that we give all the support we can to the Turks to make sure that there are no terrorist attacks on the Kurdish minority? Will he join me in asking whether Robin was also present at the meeting referred to earlier?

Douglas Alexander: I will leave the final question to be discussed between the Members concerned.
	On the substantive point, of course we continue, through our embassy in Ankara and through ministerial contact of the kind of which I spoke, to press the case for further improvements in human rights. There has been progress—for example, in relation to Kurdish broadcasting—but there is further scope for progress to be made. That is why I give my word to the House that we shall continue to take forward this work during that process of accession over the months and years ahead.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will now take Question 11.

Hamas

Gordon Banks: What steps he is taking to establish channels of communication with Hamas; and if he will make a statement.

Jack Straw: We fully support the approach set out by the Quartet. Members of any Palestinian Government must be committed to non-violence, the recognition of Israel and the acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the road map.
	May I take this opportunity to explain to the House what has happened today in Jericho and elsewhere in the occupied territories? First, I must emphasise the Government's condemnation of today's appalling acts of violence. They are totally unwarranted. I am glad to tell the House that all United Kingdom monitors and other employees of the British Government are safe—including British Council employees, all of whom are Palestinian—in Gaza and in Ramallah. We are currently advising against all travel to the occupied territories.
	I set out the background to the withdrawal of our monitors from the prison in Jericho in a written ministerial statement to the House this morning. The House will recall that they arrived in Jericho under the Ramallah agreement in 2002, which helped to bring about the end of the siege of President Arafat's compound.
	The Ramallah agreement set out clear conditions under which the six Palestinian prisoners would be held. The 14 British and American monitors were there to monitor those conditions, not to detain or protect the prisoners. Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority have never in the past four years met all their obligations under the Ramallah agreement, despite our repeated demands that they do so.
	Our monitors faced an increasing threat to their safety. I considered—on advice from officials and security experts—withdrawing them last year, but I judged that, on balance, the risk was just acceptable to allow them to stay. In the light of recent reports, however, I decided that their position was no longer tenable and the security risks were unacceptable. The safety of the British monitors had to be my overriding concern. In my original statement to the House of 29 April 2002, I set out the fact that that was our overriding concern, but also the principal responsibility of the Palestinian Authority.
	Given the deteriorating situation, on Wednesday last, 8 March, we—that is, the United States and the United Kingdom consuls general—informed the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government, as the Ramallah agreement required us to do, by letter of our intention to withdraw the monitors "with immediate effect"—I quote directly from the letter—unless the Palestinian Authority took a final opportunity to meet their obligations. I regret that they felt or were unable to do so. For obvious security reasons—namely, the safety of the monitors as they withdrew—we could not give precise timings of the withdrawal, but the phrase "with immediate effect" was absolutely clear. We made sure, and were assured, that President Abbas was made aware of our plans. The letter, indeed, was to him.
	Just before coming to the House, I spoke to President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni. I urged the Government of Israel to show the maximum restraint in their current actions being undertaken in the perimeter of Jericho prison.

Gordon Banks: In the light of today's developments and of reports of hostage-taking in Gaza, will my right hon. Friend tell us what wider measures he is taking to ensure the safety of all British nationals in Gaza and on the west bank, to reduce the immediate tensions and to limit any possible spread of today's violence?

Jack Straw: We immediately issued changes to travel advice, urging British citizens—British subjects—not to travel to the occupied territories for the time being. We also gave other detailed advice. As I told the House earlier, I have already spoken to the Foreign Minister of the Government of Israel, and urged that the Israeli defence force show maximum restraint in the present difficult circumstances.

William Hague: May I return to the substance of the original question? The Quartet has laid down clear conditions for Hamas to comply with its demands. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us how much time Hamas has in which to change, and specifically when a cut-off in funding might occur?
	The Foreign Secretary is right to attach such importance to the safety of our monitors, and his decision in principle to withdraw from the Jericho monitoring mission is therefore understandable. However, several questions inevitably arise. Did the Government give sufficient consideration to the consequences of a sudden withdrawal, and should an interim arrangement have been sought to avert an outbreak of violence when the monitors withdrew? What was done to alert the British Council and British officers in the region to the possibility of a sudden escalation of violence? Were the Government aware of the likelihood of Israel seeking to take custody of the prisoners by force? Under the terms of the Ramallah agreement, which party has responsibility for the lives and safety of the Palestinian detainees now that the monitoring mission has been withdrawn? In the meantime, what steps are the Government taking to make clear to armed Palestinian groups—or, indeed, anyone else—that the targeting of British property and personnel will in no circumstances advance their interests?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asked about the time that we would give the Hamas Administration. No time scale has been laid down so far. Indeed, for the time being there is no Hamas Administration. We wait to see the nature of that Administration. However, the Quartet's statement is very clear. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I have sought to ensure that while clear expectations are laid at the door of the new Hamas majority in the Palestinian legislative assembly, ordinary Palestinians are not punished or impoverished for the results of their perfectly free decisions in the election.
	As for the withdrawal decision that I announced earlier today, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the understanding that he showed. He asked whether sufficient consideration had been given to whether there was any alternative. The answer is yes. The matter had been under active consideration by me for getting on for a year. When I was first asked to agree to the withdrawal I decided not to do so, because at that stage, after further questioning of the security assessments, I judged—although it was a risk, for which I took responsibility—that it was just acceptable for the monitors to stay.
	There comes a moment, however, when it is impossible to be irresponsible about such risks. My judgment then became, last week, that the risk to the people for whom we were directly responsible was too great. I also considered whether there could be some kind of phased withdrawal. The problem was that, according to the advice that I received and according to my judgment, if we gave notice our own monitors might end up being subject to kidnap or siege inside the prison. I am in no doubt about that. For that reason—and although we made it absolutely clear in the letter that was sent to President Mahmoud Abbas, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, that unless there was any change the decision would have immediate effect—we could not give either the Palestinians or the Israelis advance notice.
	Did we alert the British Council? I cannot give the House the precise details, but I can say that British Council staff, who were all Palestinians, became aware of the possibility of demonstrations and that all those staff in both Ramallah and Gaza were withdrawn, so happily they are safe.
	Were we aware of the likelihood of the Israelis' seeking to take people into custody or seeking, effectively, to lay a siege around Jericho prison? Indeed we were, and that was part of what I had to consider. The House will recall the background—these detainees had been accused by the Israeli Government of complicity or involvement in the assassination of the Israeli Tourism Minister. The Israelis wished to arrest them, but they took refuge in the Muqata'a, President Arafat's compound. There was then a siege of President Arafat and those prisoners, the resolution of which was that the prisoners would be held in a Palestinian jail but with British and American monitors. The Israelis only agreed to that provided that we agreed to monitor the situation. It was for that reason that we kept saying to   the Palestinians, "Please improve security, ensure that the conditions of the Ramallah agreement are observed and ensure the security of our personnel."
	Who is responsible for the detainees? Legally, I believe it is the Palestinians but, so far as the Israelis are concerned, the detainees are prisoners at large under charge in Israel. That is currently the subject of intensive diplomatic efforts with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Gerald Kaufman: Whatever revulsion Hamas arouses, is not it a fact that its election victory was as valid as that of the Israeli Government and a good deal more valid than that of George W. Bush in 2000? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Israelis continue to create their own do-it-yourself ghetto behind a wall encroaching deeply into Palestinian territory, while maintaining 350,000 illegal Israeli settlers and carrying out pre-election stunts like they have just done in Jericho, peace will be impossible and support for Hamas will rise still further?

Jack Straw: The Quartet has accepted and acknowledged and, indeed, congratulated the Palestinian people on,
	"an electoral process that was free, fair and secure."
	In the same statement, the Quartet reiterated its view that settlement expansion by Israel had to stop, reiterated its concern regarding the route of the barrier and noted acting Prime Minister Olmert's recent statements that Israel will continue the process of removing unauthorised outposts. This is a difficult situation—it has been on many occasions in recent years—and we urge all sides to show restraint.

Michael Moore: This is a tragic development and whatever the Israelis' calculations and concerns, their actions have turned a sensitive situation into a highly volatile one, and that is utterly counter-productive. The Foreign Secretary is right that our first priority must be the safety of British citizens in the west bank and Gaza. We agree that retaliatory attacks against them and others are a disgrace and must be completely condemned. Will he clarify the steps that are being taken to mobilise the Quartet in response to these events? Will he confirm when he personally most recently discussed the Ramallah agreement with his opposite numbers in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority? What additional security measures at the prison were requested and refused?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his understanding and acceptance that the first priority for any Foreign Secretary must be the security of his own personnel. Frankly, if I am open to criticism, it is on the basis that I kept them there as long as I did, and not that I had to remove them earlier today. On mobilising the Quartet, I have spoken to the United States' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and I will speak to other members of the Quartet, including High Representative Solana, later today. Earlier today, I spoke to Ursula Plassnik, the Austrian Foreign Minister, who holds the presidency of the Foreign Minister's Council of the European Union. In any event, I am clear that all members of the Quartet will be of the same view as the British Government.
	I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off-hand when I last discussed the Ramallah agreement with either the Palestinians or the Israelis. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that our staff in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv have constantly raised the issue, especially with the Palestinian Authority. Following the dispatch of the letter by fax to President Abbas's office last Wednesday, the consul-general, John Jenkins, to whom I spoke just two hours ago, made four separate phone calls to Mahmoud Abbas's chief of staff to ensure that the letter had been received and fully understood. When I spoke to Mahmoud Abbas, who happened to be in Vienna, earlier today, he confirmed that he was indeed aware of the content of the letter. He expressed concern about the fact that we had not given them a precise date and time for the removal, but I have dealt with that issue: if we had, the monitors could have been kidnapped. The security problem has not been the willingness of the   Palestinian Authority in Ramallah to act, but the inaction of the security personnel on the ground in the Jericho prison.
	What we required of the Palestinian Authority was very straightforward—that they kept to the detailed conditions of the operational procedures for the Authority, as agreed in an annexe to the Ramallah agreement. That agreement included no use of mobile telephones, but they were used. Mr. Sa'adat, the leader of the Palestinians who stood in the Palestinian election, ran an election campaign from his cellwith his telephone. There were supposed to be restrictions on visitors—they were ineffective—and on correspondence. Moreover, conditions for the monitors became so difficult that they could not carry out cell searches. A fundamental part of the Ramallah agreement was that the six prisoners in question should be kept separate from all other prisoners. However, the monitors were unable to be within the prison; instead, they had to stay on the roof, making effective monitoring increasingly difficult. That was the fundamental problem and putting it right could have been very straightforward—simply by following the Ramallah agreement. I regret that the Palestinian Authority did not have it within them to do so.

Peter Kilfoyle: As the Foreign Secretary said, these are accused, not convicted, men. However, can he give unequivocal confirmation that there was no collusion with the Israelis on the timing of the withdrawal of the monitors, and will he condemn what I can only describe as state-sponsored terrorism, involving attacking a prison with tanks and rockets?

Jack Straw: I can absolutely give that undertaking to my hon. Friend—there was indeed no collusion. Under the terms of the Ramallah agreement, we had to give formal notice in writing of our intention to withdraw not only to the Palestinian Authority, but to the Israeli Government. That letter, a copy of which was put in the House Library this morning, spelled out that we were indeed giving a copy of it to the Israelis. We deliberately decided not to tell anybody about the exact timing of the withdrawal because of the risk to the safety of our monitors, but also precisely to ensure that there could be no collusion with the Israeli defence force. The truth, given the nature of surveillance in the occupied territories, is that if we had told anybody in the occupied territories, we would in practice have been telling the Israeli defence force at the same time.

Edward Garnier: The week before last, two of my hon. Friends and I visited the west bank. I shall allow them to speak for themselves, but it was quite apparent to me that relations between the Israeli defence force and the Palestinians were hardly cordial, and today's events will not have improved that. Can the Foreign Secretary persuade me that what he is doing is going to have a practical diplomatic and political consequence, and that it is not simply a well-motivated exercise in appearing to do something? What practical steps can he and his friends in the other members of the Quartet take to achieve some form of progress with this very vexing problem?

Jack Straw: What I have announced today is a matter of regret, but had I come to the House and instead announced the death of British monitors as a result of my taking too high a risk, that would have been a matter of condemnation, not regret. That is the dilemma that I faced and, as I have said to the House, I was extremely reluctant to take these steps, which is why I held off from taking them, kept asking for more information on the security assessments and insisted that we gave proper notice to President Mahmoud Abbas. But there we are—I took that decision and I happen to think that it was the right one, even though there have been consequences, which we did anticipate.
	As for the future, all I can say is that notwithstanding these difficulties there has been some progress, if we look back to April 2002 when the situation was dire and killings were taking place daily on both sides. There is now a ceasefire and the numbers of deaths on each side have been reduced. We have to build on that. It is fundamental to the interests of the Palestinians for Hamas to understand that just as we have responsibilities in terms of recognising the legitimacy of the election, the Hamas leadership has a responsibility to recognise that democracy is incompatible with the pursuit of terrorism.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed Question Time to continue for a further 20 minutes, but we must now move on.

Gas (Supply and Demand)

John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement on gas market prices and supply and demand.

Alan Johnson: Early yesterday, National Grid issued a gas balancing alert as a prudent signal to the market to increase gas supplies further. That was a planned measure and not an emergency response. National Grid took that action in response to an increase in gas demand due to the cold weather, problems on the supply side with the Rough storage facility being out of operation, and low delivery through the interconnector at the weekend. That resulted in a significant call on short-range gas storage and the resulting spike in the gas price.
	As of today, the demand-supply situation has eased compared with yesterday. Demand has fallen to a near seasonal norm. Supply has increased, with greater flow through the interconnector. We are also seeing deliveries through the Isle of Grain and a further shipment of liquid natural gas is due to dock tomorrow. Deliveries from the North sea are performing strongly. National Grid expects supply and demand to balance today and does not anticipate the system being out of balance in the coming days. But National Grid, Ofgem and my Department will of course continue to monitor the situation carefully, in case of any change in the anticipated demand-supply picture.
	There is no doubt that Rough being closed is making things more difficult than they otherwise would be. Rough accounts for about 80 per cent. of our total storage capacity. It can supply 10 per cent. of average daily winter demand. Were it in operation, we would not be experiencing any problems this week. Hon. Members may recall that an accidental fire a few weeks ago shut the main pumping station; the damage caused is still being repaired. We are in close contact with Centrica, which owns the facility, and understand that it will not be back in action for a couple of months.
	It is, of course, normal for storage to be used during the course of the winter. We would expect the market to be drawing on short and medium-range storage in current circumstances, particularly at this late stage of the winter. We have had a spell of colder weather later in the winter and the UK's long-range storage facility has been shut for a month. The gas system and market has responded to those circumstances.
	Let me reiterate that on present information, we are not expecting a formal gas supply emergency. While it is clear that we must not be complacent, it is equally important not to cause unnecessary panic. The present situation does not threaten domestic, or the vast majority of commercial and industrial, supply. And even were there to be an emergency, National Grid would be able to maintain supplies to domestic and other key gas consumers.
	Of course the situation has had a major impact on prices. The spot gas price has increased significantly since the weekend. I know that for some heavy industry it is not easy to make alternative arrangements and the high prices will have an impact. The market is responding to a tight demand-supply situation, as we would expect. Gas suppliers have every incentive at those prices to maximise supply from all possible sources and we are in close contact with the operators of the interconnector to ensure that it flows as much as possible.
	Market liberalisation in mainland Europe is a key factor in reducing energy costs for British consumers. That is why we have been encouraging the European Commission to take action and why we warmly welcomed the hard-hitting report that it published on 16 February. We shall continue to press for market reform.
	Looking forward, significant new import infrastructure—new pipelines and liquefied natural gas import terminals, as well as increased storage—is to be delivered by the energy sector in coming years. Representing some £10 billion of investment, that will increase security of gas supply to the UK and should reduce upward pressure on UK prices.
	In short, the circumstances are exceptional: our largest storage facility is out of action and we are experiencing an unseasonably cold spell of weather. None the less, supply is meeting demand and the market mechanisms are working, albeit at a relatively high spot price. National Grid, Ofgem and my Department continue to monitor the situation carefully.

John Hemming: The country is on a knife edge. What will the Secretary of State say to the 7,000 people who may lose their jobs in the plastics industry? What will he say to domestic consumers, who have seen price increases and are likely to see more? What have the Government done since long-term storage went out on 16 February?
	If there is too little storage, as I think we all accept, why do we not import more on mild days? Why is the trigger for a gas balancing alert so high? On Sunday 319 GWh was taken from short-term storage, but there was no gas balancing alert. Had the same rate been taken on Monday and today, we would be in a gas emergency now. How can the Government expect UK industry to cope with energy prices in this country that are 50 per cent. greater than those in the United States of America?
	Why do the Government do so little about energy security and reducing demand? The Prime Minister says, "Not me, guv—nothing we can do." Cold weatheris now predicted. Short-range storage has approximately 50 million cu m and the Hornsea facility has 48 million cu m. Why do the Govt not do something about demand and supply?

Alan Johnson: I do not think that the country is on a knife edge. A gas balancing alert has been issued. That mechanism has operated in the electricity sector for a number of years, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, it has recently been introduced in the gas sector. It is an extremely important mechanism for telling the market that demand is exceeding supply, which means that the market responds to that. Saying that the country is on a knife edge is, I suggest, a wee bit of hyperbole.
	The hon. Gentleman asks what Government are doing. The one thing that the Government should not do is interfere in the market. I would be interested to know what the Conservatives would do in such circumstances. The days when our energy was provided by state monopolies were bad for the consumer, bad for the energy supply situation and bad for the country.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about the effect on consumers, but according to the most recent figures, we in this country are still enjoying the cheapest domestic gas in Europe. Industrial customers have had problems this winter, not only because of the problems caused in all European countries by high oil prices—Germany's wholesale gas prices have increased by 80 per cent., Denmark's by approximately 40 per cent. and France's by 20 per cent.—but because we have a tight situation in the UK this year, and probably will next year, too. We discussed that during the important debate in the House in January.
	The analysts and experts misjudged the amount of gas that would come from the North sea. The period of adjustment to that is difficult, but it would have been ludicrous for this country to have storage facilities when it had a reserve in the North sea. The Netherlands and Norway, which also have indigenous supplies, do not have huge amounts of storage. We must get the right balance in terms of transfer across.
	I think that the system is working for the benefit of consumers. We have had a difficult winter, but what the Government should do about that is to ensure that the market is operating properly—that is a particular issue for Europe—and that Ofgem and the right mechanisms are in place to see any possible crisis coming and deal with it. There is no national emergency at the moment; there is a gas balancing alert.

Doug Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) is displaying more than a little opportunism and hypocrisy, given the background of the Liberal Democrats' energy policy? Although he is right to raise the issue of gas supply and demand being in balance, he and his party fail to tackle the issue of the country's energy supplies being in balance. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy is to ensure that there is a balanced energy supply in this country, especially on the base load?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. It is extraordinary that as we look to energy supply for the future and having security of supply, which every country is looking for, and given that the days of cheap indigenous fuel are probably gone for ever, the Opposition should rule out one option. We believe that all those options, including nuclear power, should be looked at properly. We do not rule out any of those options until we have had the arguments and the analysis to come to a proper conclusion.

Alan Duncan: On 16 February, I asked the Minister to explain the Government's policy for establishing onshore strategic energy stocks that stand a chance of lasting for more than a few days. The answer, in effect, was that we have very little storage and will not do so for some time. That largely explains why Britain is so acutely vulnerable to the sort of extreme price spike that we are facing today. British business lives in fear that its fuel costs will rocket to ever more punishing levels, and that it might even be cut off altogether. Yesterday National Grid, for the first time under the new warning system, issued a gas balancing alert. If there is one positive point to be drawn from this situation, it is that at least we know that the warning system is working.
	For the next year at least, the UK will remain perilously sensitive to short-term gas price volatility. We have a free market in energy; the rest of Europe does not. Even when our prices are high, they still do not sell to us. This Government singularly failed to address this issue during their presidency of the European Union last year. Our gas production is falling, which is made worse by the Chancellor's tax regime, and during the winter we are now forced to import a growing percentage of our gas requirements. The gas comes mostly through only one pipeline, our shipped liquefied natural gas imports are not at the volumes we need, our storage capacity is puny and now our strategic vulnerability has been exacerbated by a cold snap across Europe, a fire at the Rough storage facility in the North sea, a drop in supplies from Norway and a strike by French gas workers. It is all happening at once.
	Yesterday the price of gas for immediate delivery shot up from about 60p per therm to a peak of 255p—an increase of 400 per cent. Today it is trading at about 225p to 250p for delivery within the next week or so, but for delivery in April the market is much lower at about 65p. This is the ultimate short-term market squeeze. To put it bluntly, is it not the case that there is simply nothing we can do in the immediate future, and that the excruciating exposure that Britain and its companies face will not be remedied for at least another year? Is it not the case that additional capacity to import by pipeline or ship and our capacity to store larger quantities will not come on-stream for another year? Is it not also the case that British companies that will have to endure another winter of impossible uncertainty and soaring fuel bills will not thank this Government for their culpable lack of foresight?

Alan Johnson: I agree that the current situation shows that the gas balancing system works. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about our presidency. The major issue is still that, with prices yesterday running at their highest level ever, we were not getting the gas through the interconnector that we should have been getting. Some of that was caused by the strike in France, but the primary cause was that in the European Union, principle has not been put into practice. During our presidency—as we have explained on many occasions, most recently in the debate in this Chamber in January—my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy was instrumental in convincing the commissioner and the European Union to open not just one but three lines of inquiry, one of which will result in anti-trust cases against certain EU member states within a matter of weeks. That is just on the basis of the interim report from Commissioner Kroes. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is at the Energy Council in Brussels even as we speak, seeking to ensure that we maintain that momentum. I agree that we have not changed the situation in Europe overnight, nor did we change it during the six months of our presidency, but we have put in place measures that will lead to liberalisation across Europe.
	As for our storage capacity being puny, 300 million cu m a day is coming into this country from the North sea, which is 75 per cent. of our supply. Rough has the capacity to introduce 10 per cent. of our daily demand in winter and, because total capacity is 3,340 million cu m and we can bring it in at a rate of 43 million cu m a day, we have 77 days of supply in Rough. There was an explosion at the Rough facility, which is close to my constituency, and I agree that there has been a combination of events, but we are not in an emergency. Our market has benefited UK consumers, both industrial and domestic, for many years. The worst thing the Government could do would be to step into the market with our size 16 hobnail boots. That happened in Canada and the Canadians have regretted it ever since.

Andrew Miller: The current situation underlines more than anything else could the need for a balanced energy supply. My right hon. Friend said that the vast majority of commercial and industrial users were not under threat, but in the light of the needs of large businesses in my constituency, can he assure me that supplies to major gas users in the north-west are being prioritised in the interests of those important businesses?

Alan Johnson: We have not got to that situation yet. We have a gas balancing alert, but no action has been taken because we are not in an emergency situation. The only action that is happening is that companies themselves have decided to reduce their energy needs—and who can blame them, at the price—but that is a natural mechanism. There is no question of prioritising anybody's gas needs at present; there is just a gas balancing alert, not an emergency.

Edward Davey: Given that this is the first time that National Grid has ever warned British industry that gas supplies may be shut off, does the Secretary of State regret the fact that the Minister for Energy told the House only last November that the UK was "awash with gas"? What will the right hon. Gentleman say to the thousands of employees laid off because of the recent hikes in gas prices? Have the Government not been negligently complacent about Britain's gas crisis, especially the lack of gas storage infrastructure? When Germany has storage facilities for 75 days and France for 66 days, is the right hon. Gentleman not just a little embarrassed that without Rough the UK has storage capacity for only 12 days?
	Rather than listing excuses, as the Secretary of State has done today, will he confirm that Ministers were warned about the danger several times in recent years? Is not it the case that if we had those extra facilities, gas prices for UK industry would be lower today and the alert would not have taken place?

Alan Johnson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position—and immediately disagree with him. He says that this is the first time in the whole history of our fabulous nation that we have had a gas balancing alert. Yes, that is true—because gas balancing alerts were introduced for the first time this winter. That is the simple fact. The system worked, and it was right to introduce it. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy spoke last November, the situation was completely different; we had not lost the Rough facility. A cold snap in December led to companies taking gas out of storage early in the winter, which was expensive and put up prices. The issue was not about gas supplies; there was plenty of gas around in December.
	The hon. Gentleman raised another issue that was completely wrong, too. He put a bizarre question: could I confirm that in Germany and France there is lots of storage, whereas in the UK, without Rough, we do not have so much storage? Yes, I can confirm that. As Rough holds 80 per cent. of our storage capacity, I can confirm to Opposition Members that when Rough is out of action our storage capacity is reduced. I hope that that helps them.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State recall that the hard-hitting EU report that he mentioned sprang directly from the Heads of Government discussions at Hampton Court? Is not the real issue before us—the key way forward—transparency in the European market? We have talked about that for a decade. Is it not now time that the EU took action?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: transparency is key. At the moment, we have to try to find out what facilities exist in other EU member states and what can come through the interconnector. It is because there is no transparency that no member state knows what is happening with energy supplies. He is absolutely right to mention Hampton Court, where we set in train the process for reaching an understanding across the EU about energy supplies, and the situation at Christmas between Russia and Ukraine was a real wake-up call. If we had not raised that issue at Hampton Court, other member states would have realised, following what happened at Christmas, the need to have an energy supply policy throughout the EU.

Peter Luff: There is nothing particularly unseasonal about the weather this March—March can often be a very cold month—and we face these problems again next winter. Indeed, the problems are exactly as the Select Committee on Trade and Industry foresaw in its report published in December, to which the Government responded so constructively. As little can be done over the next 12 months to correct the situation fundamentally, we referred to the need to take mitigating action, particularly for industrial and commercial customers—for example, fuel switching and removing some of the restrictions on emissions. The Government responded positively to that idea and said that they were exploring it with the Environment Agency. Can the Secretary of State update the House on what more the Government have done to enable such mitigating action to be taken—not just for this winter but, I am afraid, for next winter as well?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman and the Trade and Industry Committee produced an excellent report. We are acting on those recommendations. Indeed, if we do get into an emergency—I do not think that we will, and we should get things into perspective, as I have been saying—such mitigating factors can be introduced. We are a long way along the route to helping, in strict accordance with the recommendations that he made. He is right to suggest that the weather may not be unseasonal, although I think that the weather has improved since 1997—I would make that claim on behalf of the Government. None the less, a cold spell this late in the winter with storage capacity out of action is a series of events that we could have done without.

Helen Goodman: In my constituency two factories—Potters Ballotini and Weinberger—have been closed since November, allegedly temporarily, even though their sister plants on the continent are still open. At the same time, I understand, Barclays bank is paying its energy traders record bonuses. I find the Secretary of State's statement that supply is meeting demand—other than in a textbook sense—extraordinary. Can he not admit that it was precipitate to liberalise our energy markets before countries in the rest of Europe liberalised theirs?

Alan Johnson: No, I think that that was absolutely the right thing to do. As for how it has worked for our customers, both domestic and industrial, British industry, for instance, has paid something like £8 billion less for its energy since liberalisation than German industry. The record of UK companies' energy costs has been very good. We have a problem this winter—my hon. Friend refers to companies in her constituency—and I do not want to diminish in any way the effect on energy-intensive users: it has been dramatic this year, and it is something that we cannot deny.
	My point about demand meeting supply is that National Grid issues a gas balancing alert when supply is not matching demand. It looks at the situation every day. Yesterday morning it decided that it should issue a gas balancing alert, because supply was not meeting demand. This morning it decided that it should not do so, because supply is meeting demand. That is the only point that I was making on behalf of National Grid. I was not trying to make some great philosophical point about the political situation with energy.

Alex Salmond: Does the Minister accept that it is little consolation for consumers facing sky-high prices and major users facing interruptions in supply to be told by the Minister that yesterday's announcement is part of a grand master plan that is working exactly as it should? Is it not weak-kneed and feeble to claim that a fire in a single installation can bring the UK gas market into chaos and disarray? When will the Government accept responsibility for the lack of capacity in the system and the lack of investment, principally caused by Ofgem, which has delayed Norwegian supplies to this country? Why, with 24 discovered but underdeveloped gas fields west of Scotland, have the Government imposed a 10 per cent. supplementary charge on pipeline infrastructure, which has delayed their development? Does the Minister think that that is a good idea, in the circumstances?

Alan Johnson: Last year there were a record number of licences for exploration in the North sea, and we are pleased by the amount of interest there. All the major explorers have continued to make the point that they are interested in looking for supplies in the North sea, but increasingly they are looking longer for fewer resources. In the spirit of knockabout it is good to suggest that there is a magic wand that we could wave to put the situation right this winter. All that we can do is put it into context and make the argument about what needs to be done to rectify the situation for British business. What is needed is liberalisation in the European Union and more investment in pipeline facilities and storage. Some £10 billion of investment will be made by the private sector—we would never have been able to do that in the public sector—in the next few years. It is easy to exaggerate the problems and the situation in the UK, but it is incumbent on us to put the issues in perspective and to repeat yet again that there is no emergency.

Bob Blizzard: Is not the lesson from yesterday that even in exceptional circumstances the system worked as it was designed to work? A couple of weeks ago, I asked the head of one of the largest European gas companies why his company was not trying to sell more gas to this country when our prices were higher. His answer, quite simply, was, "I am sewn up in long-term gas contracts with my customers, and I have to put them first." Does my right hon. Friend accept that explanation, and if so, does it not say something about the balance between the amount of gas that this country receives on long-term contracts and the amount that people are buying or supplying on spot prices?

Alan Johnson: It is undoubtedly the case that in continental Europe there are far more contract supplies of gas and energy. In this country, the position was similar until recently. More companies have decided to buy on the spot market, and who can blame them, as it was producing gas at 22p a therm only 18 months to two years ago? In Europe there are more contractual supplies than in the UK, but across Europe we need transparency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, and a liberalised market. If we can achieve that, we can ensure that instead of having national champions—a system pursued by many European Union countries—we have consumer champions producing the low energy costs that we have enjoyed in this country for many years.

Peter Bone: The Secretary of State is right to say that the problem lies with liberalisation in Europe and that the Government have tried to do something about it. However, they have been trying to do that for many years, so why does he think that the Europeans are going to listen to him now?

Alan Johnson: I do not know how many years we have been trying, but one thing is different: the Commission, and Commissioner Neelie Kroes in particular, are determined to tackle the issue. The Barroso Commission is a breath of fresh air, given the intensity of its desire to liberalise not just in energy but in other areas that remain unliberalised, and given its whole approach to regulation throughout the European Union.

John Grogan: The Government have said that the owners of LNG terminals and gas storage facilities must either use them or lose them. Is there not a strong case for establishing the principle of third-party access for suppliers to storage facilities and terminals to enable the market to operate more effectively?

Alan Johnson: There may well be a case. That is an issue that we will examine in the energy review.

Mark Pritchard: Does not the recent series of events show how UK plc is vulnerable when its energy supplies are disrupted? If the Secretary of State agrees, will he tell the House what new measures have been put in place to ensure that our storage and infrastructure facilities are protected from malicious attack?

Alan Johnson: We have a vulnerability this winter and next winter. Beyond that we do not expect our situation to be any more vulnerable than that of any other country. We are fortunate that we still have an indigenous supply. [Interruption.] It may be declining, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) says from a sedentary position. We may be a net importer of gas—but of all the G7 countries, only Canada is not a net importer of energy. I think that we will be in a position similar to that of other countries. As for malicious attacks, if the hon. Gentleman is talking about terrorism, we have long-standing measures in place to protect against that, particularly at our nuclear facilities. We believe that those measures have worked, and will work in the future.

John Redwood: What specific measures would the Secretary of State like the European Union to take to address the gross distortions of the continental gas market, and what is the time frame for getting those remedies in place so that they take effect?

Alan Johnson: The specific remedies will be, first, transparency, with everyone being absolutely open about the energy supplies that exist in the European Union. That is a big issue for the EU. Germany imports about 41 per cent. of its gas from Russia and is extremely worried about being over-dependent on Russia. There is an urgent need for the European Union to look at its own resources. Secondly, although other member states were due to liberalise seven or eight years ago when the directive went through, that has not happened. Policy has not been put into practice. That needs to happen, which is why Neelie Kroes is looking at anti-trust measures that should be adopted to galvanise the situation. On the time scale, we expect anti-trust measures to be taken within weeks, as I said earlier. Beyond that I am not sure, but we are seeing a level of activity in the Commission that we have not seen for many years.

Daniel Kawczynski: May I tell the Secretary of State that three British companies are drilling for gas off the coast of Mauritania and have found significant reserves of gas in that country? Will he agree to meet representatives of those companies? Does he agree that it is disappointing that we do not have an embassy in Mauritania? If we are to start exploring for gas in such countries, we need representation there.

Alan Johnson: I, or my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, would be glad to meet the hon. Gentleman's constituents, although I am not so keen to go to Mauritania. His question about Britain having an embassy in Mauritania is more properly one for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which I am sure will consider it with interest.

BBC White Paper

Tessa Jowell: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement. I am today publishing a White Paper on the future of the BBC, entitled "A Public Service for All: the BBC in the Digital Age". It does exactly what that describes.
	We live in an era of rapid change. In broadcasting, new technologies are leading to vastly more television and radio channels and to new media services. The BBC's charter, shortly due for renewal, needs to create a BBC strong enough to thrive in the new environment and flexible enough to adapt to new challenges. The BBC is a driving force to enrich our public realm. It is one of those institutions that brings the people of this country together as equals.
	More than 70 per cent. of households now have digital television. As digital delivers ever more choice, there are some who describe the BBC as an anachronism. The Government disagree. More importantly, the British people disagree. Our unprecedented engagement with the people of this country in the development of the White Paper—more than 10,000 people wrote to us—has shown that people right across the country want a strong BBC that is independent of Government and is responsive to public wishes.
	The Government hope that the new charter will give the public the BBC that they want. The Reithian principles—"inform, educate and entertain"—will be adapted for the digital age, but we will give audiences and competitors greater clarity about what that means in practice.
	The BBC will have six new purposes: sustaining citizenship and civil society, promoting education, stimulating creativity, reflecting the identity of the UK's nations, regions and communities, bringing the world to the UK and the UK to the world and building digital Britain, where the BBC will act as a "trusted guide". There was strong public support for all those objectives, but licence fee payers also want to ensure that they get the BBC programmes that they want to watch and listen to, and they do not want an overdose of worthiness.
	The White Paper makes entertainment central to the BBC's mission. The BBC should continue to take fun seriously, engraining entertainment into all its services, but the White Paper is not about writing the BBC a blank cheque or chasing ratings through copy-cat programming. It is about ensuring that the BBC delivers what licence fee payers want in terms of quality and distinctiveness.
	The BBC's governance structure has become anachronistic, and the BBC needs a new form of accountability to licence fee payers, as the BBC's shareholders. Our new arrangements will make the BBC closer to the people who pay for it and more accountable to them. In a step change for the BBC's governance, we will abolish the BBC governors and replace them with two new bodies, the BBC Trust and a separate executive board.
	The trust will be the licence fee payer's voice. It will act as a proxy for the BBC's shareholders, making it the first public interest body on that scale that the country has ever seen. The trust will oversee the executive board, whose own job will be to run the BBC's services. There will be clear separation of responsibilities between the trust and the executive board. Although the trust will be the sovereign body of the BBC—its word will be final—the new charter and agreement will prevent it from doing the executive board's job, which is critical to maintaining the objectivity required to generate and sustain public confidence. That is a unique solution for a unique organisation in unique circumstances.
	An important part of getting the best programmes to the screen is competition for quality programmes. The White Paper requires the BBC to operate a commissioning system that encourages greater competition between in-house and independent producers but maintains the critical mass of in-house production. That new "window of creative competition" should result in the independent quota of 25 per cent. genuinely becoming a floor, not a ceiling.
	I repeat our welcome in principle for the BBC's proposals to move a significant amount of production to Greater Manchester, helping to ensure that the licence fee is used as venture capital for the whole nation's creativity.
	The BBC will continue as the cornerstone of public service broadcasting. We are equally committed to maintaining a dynamic commercial sector. That, too, is in the interests of the licence fee payer. In order to do that, we will put in place a triple-lock system to ensure the highest standards of accountability. First, the trust will issue licences to the executive board for running each BBC service. Secondly, BBC content will have to have distinctive characteristics, such as being original, of high quality, challenging or innovative—all supported by the consultation with licence fee payers. Thirdly, a public value test will be applied to all new BBC services or significant changes to existing services. In response to some concerns raised in the debate that followed the Green Paper, I am happy to clarify that whenever the trust carries out a public value test, Ofcom will provide the market impact assessment to guarantee rigour and ensure wider public confidence.
	We will also put in place: a new duty on the trust to have regard to competition issues; ex ante codes in specific areas that have the potential to raise issues or concerns about competition; an overhauled fair trading regime; and a fair, transparent complaints system. The White Paper also confirms that the BBC will be fully licence fee funded for the period of the next charter. There will be future reviews into the scope for other methods of funding the BBC beyond 2016 and the possibility of distributing public funding, including licence fee money, beyond the BBC.
	The process of deciding the next licence fee settlement has already started. Licence fee payers and industry will help to form our conclusions. The trust will need to make some tough decisions about how resources are allocated within the boundaries of the settlement. That will include self-help. To help the trust exercise stewardship of the licence fee, the relationship between the BBC and the National Audit Office will be strengthened within the existing arrangements.
	Despite past predictions, public service broadcasting, led by the BBC, remains the bedrock of today's media, with strong public support. We are optimists about the future of the BBC, but it cannot take its position for granted. It must develop its role over the next 10 years, strengthening its accountability, bringing in new generations of viewers and listeners, and building a new consensus around the value of its place in Britain. The White Paper gives it the means to build that national consensus, with the authority and support of licence fee payers, and so I commend it to the House.

Hugo Swire: First, may I thank the right hon. Lady for allowing me to have prior sight of both the White Paper and her statement? The wait was almost worth it, although I cannot quite see the difference between the Green Paper and the White Paper and we had to wait for the equivalent of the gestation period for an elephant to get the White Paper. I would be interested if the right hon. Lady would tell us where the differences are between one and the other.
	The BBC is indeed a unique, much loved and much cherished institution and the Conservative party is committed to ensuring its future. Across the country and the world, the BBC stands out as a beacon of excellence. Our duty is to ensure that the BBC that we pass on to future generations is equipped to flourish in the decades ahead. Does the right hon. Lady not understand that to many the White Paper is such a disappointment? It singularly fails to rise to the challenge that the BBC faces. It was supposed to provide us with a springboard to the new digital age. But it is not so much a launching pad as a holding pen.
	The White Paper is a huge missed opportunity for change and innovation. The Secretary of State has failed to grasp the challenges facing broadcasting in the 21st century. Digital television, broadband internet, podcasting and on-demand viewing are transforming the world in which the BBC operates and will change forever the future of public service television in Britain. In a fast-paced digital age, with people watching television on their mobile phones, iPods and laptops, and with the eclipse of the traditional television channel, is it credible to believe that a compulsory tax on the ownership of a television set is the right way to fund our national broadcaster for the next 10 years? Do not hon. Members accept that by failing to respond to those challenges, the Secretary of State has produced a White Paper that fails not only the BBC but the viewing public?
	With an international reputation to uphold, it is vital that the BBC is bound by the highest standards of quality, impartiality and integrity. Does not the Secretary of State agree that the fine judgments that the BBC makes daily must be in the interests of the public, not Ministers and the Government? That is why the BBC needs a proper independent regulator. Why is it that Ofcom has the ability properly to regulate every other broadcaster in the UK, but not the BBC?
	"I fully support the recent proposals that there should be a single regulatory body for all terrestrial television."
	Those are not my words, but those of Michael Grade, the chairman of the governors of the BBC, when he was chief executive of Channel 4.
	Is the BBC Trust proposed by the Secretary of State anything more than the BBC governors in another building—just as cosy, but twice the rent? If the BBC is to meet its public service broadcasting obligations, is it not essential that the British public have confidence in its independence and integrity? The Prime Minister may think that it is appropriate for him to act as judge and jury, but surely we cannot accept a model that fails to separate governance and regulation. Must not we have a system in place whereby those regulating the content, impartiality and standards of the BBC see themselves as representing the licence fee payer, not the Secretary of State?
	The BBC is a unique organisation in a unique position. Because of that, we must ensure that that position is not abused to the detriment of other broadcasters or the viewing and listening public. Is it not unacceptable for a publicly funded BBC to be allowed to outspend and outgun its competitors, prevent innovation and stifle competition?
	How can we be confident that the advisory role for Ofcom, as envisaged in the White Paper, will have the power to clip the wings of Auntie when she spies a lucrative potential market? Why can Ofcom do no more than send an advisory report to the BBC? That is not a criticism of Ofcom, just bewilderment at the way in which the Secretary of State is tying its hands. As long as the BBC has the ability to ignore Ofcom, as it does under the right hon. Lady's plans, it will continue unchecked and unrestrained. Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether Ofcom will be allowed to investigate the BBC's activities retrospectively? I doubt that. I suspect that Ofcom will not be a watchdog, but more the proverbial toothless tiger, and that we will be left with a typical new Labour initiative—a competition champion with only advisory powers.
	Does the Secretary of State appreciate our concerns about her White Paper's suggestion that the BBC should be under a charter obligation to promote Britain abroad and to sustain citizenship and civil society? The Chancellor is already talking about his desire to see a flagpole in every garden. Is not there a danger that that will soon be followed by a Union jack flying from every TV aerial in the land? Jesting apart, does not such a move—at least in the hands of the Government, who are not known for their respect for independent institutions—represent an insidious threat to the BBC's impartiality? Surely the Secretary of State can see the dangers.
	We are considering an unprecedented increase in funding for the BBC—from just under £3 billion a year to well over £4 billion in 2013. Why does the settlement require such an increase? Why are we faced with a bill for the BBC that is higher than the gross domestic product of Mongolia? Is it because of the grasping hand of the Chancellor? Are not the Government using charter renewal as a Trojan horse to pay for digital switchover? When there is a smell of easy money, the Chancellor is never far away, looking for ways of paying for policies that he cannot afford. Is it not the case that he is hellbent on trousering between £2 billion and £5 billion from flogging off the analogue spectrum? The licence fee payer will pay for that, but will not get anything back for the investment. Like the worst dinner date, the Chancellor is never around when the bill arrives.
	We know that the Chancellor has form—he made £27 billion from the sell-off of the 3G network, and he is looking to repeat the exercise. Surely his ingenuity does not stop there. An example of the stealthiest of stealth taxes, he hopes that, by using the word "spectrum", the unsuspecting public will not realise that he has just imposed the first new Labour TV tax.
	Like the computer salesman who bamboozles the customer with jargon, the Chancellor hopes that we will simply not notice another £300 million going from our pockets into his. Does not the Secretary of State accept that a licence fee that exceeds £180 will hit hardest the poorest in Britain—those on low and fixed incomes? Does not she agree that there is a danger that public confidence in the BBC, as a national institution, will be undermined by a licence fee that is set beyond many people's ability to pay, simply to feed the Chancellor's tax-and-spend habit?
	We had high hopes of the White Paper because we had high hopes of the BBC. However, the document is a missed opportunity to introduce regulation to guarantee impartiality and independence. It is a missed opportunity to harness the potential of the digital age, to provide a level playing field for the commercial sector, to reinforce public confidence in the BBC and to give the BBC licence fee payers value for money.

Tessa Jowell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that was high on rhetoric and low on substance. He will be considerably reassured when, in a calmer frame of mind, he reads the substance of the White Paper.
	Let me begin with the differences between us, which have led to the Government pursuing their approach to the future shape of the BBC. As I said in my opening remarks, the BBC Trust is a unique organisation and a unique solution, which recognises the BBC's unique nature. The BBC is an organisation like no other in this country. Our intention is that it should be more accountable than ever to the people who pay for it—the licence fee payers.
	There has been a time-honoured consensus in this country about the importance of universal free-to-view broadcasting. That principle safeguards the interests of the most vulnerable and those who, at a time of rapid change, are at risk of being left behind. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as part of mitigating the risk, the Government introduced free television licences for those over 75. We will ensure that targeted help, which is necessary as a consequence of digital switchover, protects the interests of the vulnerable and the very elderly.
	I shall deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points, particularly on the changes that have taken place since the Green Paper was published some months ago, which are reflected in today's White Paper. Several important parliamentary reports have appeared in the interim, including the report of the Select Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), and the report of the House of Lords Select Committee. It was right to give due consideration to both those reports in developing the White Paper policy. It is in the light of the concerns raised, particularly by the House of Lords Select Committee, on the structure of the trust, that we have sought to strengthen its role in relation to broader competition issues, the development of ex ante codes, the role of the National Audit Office in working with the trust to ensure value for money for the licence fee payer, and the role of Ofcom in conducting and developing market impact assessments. All of that will ensure that choice for the consumer—the licence fee payer—is not diminished as a consequence of the BBC's intended place in the broadcasting marketplace. If the hon. Gentleman considers those matters in a rather more serious and rational way and sets aside his rather overblown rhetoric, he will understand that that solution is right for the BBC and wanted by the people of this country.

John Whittingdale: The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been numerous complaints from news providers, software publishers, online services, record companies and mobile phone operators about the impact of the BBC's ambitions in that respect. While the BBC is clearly right to make available its programmes in whatever format the consumer chooses, does the Secretary of State accept that its intervention could risk having the same kind of impact as that of an elephant jumping into a swimming pool? Will she therefore consider making Ofcom's role more than simply an advisory one? Will she also ensure that the final decision about launching new services does not rest with the BBC alone, even in the guise of the new BBC Trust rather than that of the old BBC governors?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman has raised two important considerations. If the broadcasting market is to continue to flourish, it is crucial that the potential competitive impact of the BBC is understood and subject to scrutiny. That is why the market impact assessment will be conducted under the joint surveillance of the trust and Ofcom, and why the trust will have a duty to consider the wider interests of licence fee payers.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a second important issue, which is now being considered by Ofcom, about the ownership of broadcast rights to material delivered through new media. He will be aware that Ofcom will shortly reach its conclusion on that consultation, and we should obviously await that. Those are two examples of the competitive challenges facing the BBC and any other media organisation of scale in this country. It is important that the BBC should be a source for growth in innovation, not a constraint on innovation. The structure of the trust will ensure that that happens, as will the role of Ofcom, which will publish in a transparent manner all the conclusions on market impact assessments. Ultimately, the BBC Trust will be accountable to the licence fee payers for its judgments.

Gerald Kaufman: While many of us have great confidence in Michael Grade as chairman of the BBC and Mark Thompson as director-general, does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality and integrity of BBC governance must not depend on the quality of individuals at any given time and that the test of the new governance structure that she proposes is that never again will it be possible for a huge and culpable blunder by broadcasters to be condoned and support for it railroaded through the board of governors, as occurred in the David Kelly affair? Everybody agreed after that affair that, if there was one flaw in the BBC, it was the structure of governance. Can my right hon. Friend give me the assurance for which I ask?

Tessa Jowell: I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his distinguished chairmanship of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which has undertaken many inquiries into the BBC and whose recommendations we have taken very seriously indeed. Yes, I can give him the assurance about the importance of a structural separation of the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC executive. It is important that the organisation is structurally robust, and, as he suggests, not simply built around personalities. These are structures designed to run the BBC for a decade to come.

Don Foster: The test of the White Paper must be whether it guarantees a strong, independent and securely funded BBC equipped to meet the challenges of the digital age, strengthened in its independence from the Government and set to remain the envy of the world.
	Unlike the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I think there is much in the White Paper to applaud: a clear statement of purposes to the BBC, emphasising quality, not ratings; increased opportunities for independent production; greater scrutiny of BBC finances under the NAO; continuation of the licence fee; and a charter lasting 10 years, ensuring long-term planning. That said, there are concerns on regulation, Government demands on the BBC and public service broadcasting in general.
	On regulation, does the Secretary of State accept that while the proposed BBC Trust is an improvement on the BBC governors, it is still not a totally independent regulator? It will have, as we see in the White Paper, strategic oversight of major BBC decisions, and the White Paper even describes it as the sovereign body within the BBC, so it is still part of the BBC. Does she agree that that will be especially problematic when deciding whether the BBC is allowed to develop an existing service or introduce a new one?
	The new proposals are certainly tougher than the current ones, and Ofcom's role—it is hardly a toothless tiger, I have to say—in assessing market impact is welcome, but will not the BBC still be its own judge and jury? Will the Secretary of State at least accept the need for a clear process of appeal to a truly independent authority? Better still, will she agree that a new single independent regulator for all public service broadcasters is the best option of all?
	On demands made on the BBC, is there not a danger that the BBC will be buried under innumerable Government targets? Is not the Secretary of State slightly embarrassed by the fact that the last charter and agreement had 43 clauses between them, whereas the new charter and agreement have 175—a fourfold increase?
	Given those demands, will the Secretary of State rule out a smash-and-grab raid on the licence fee payers to fund them? For example, does she agree that targeted assistance to help disadvantaged households in the switch to digital should be paid from general taxation, not the licence fee? Does she agree that the regeneration benefits, not the programme quality improvement benefits, of the move to Manchester should be paid for by Manchester authorities, not TV viewers nationwide? I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one thing at least. If the Chancellor does introduce spectrum charging, will the Secretary of State rule out the possibility that the BBC will have to pay for it out of the licence fee?
	Will the Secretary of State re-examine the question of who pays the licence fee, and review the policy of concessions for vulnerable groups? Is it not bizarre that while hotels need only one licence for the first 15 rooms, there are no concessions for women's refuges?
	I hope the Secretary of State agrees that competition is good for the BBC. Will she make a firm commitment to preserving the plurality of public service broadcasting by, for example, protecting the future of Channel 4?
	Notwithstanding those concerns, there is much to be welcomed in the White Paper. For 80 years, the BBC has been the cornerstone of public service broadcasting in this country. Although they are not perfect, the proposals in the White Paper should ensure that as we enter the digital era the BBC will continue to play an important role in all our lives.

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity.
	During the development of the White Paper, the central debate was about the nature of regulation of the BBC. As the hon. Gentleman will know, at least four options have been widely canvassed and widely debated. As I have made clear, Labour Members believe that the BBC Trust is equipped with the necessary powers to be close enough to the BBC to know what is going on, but strong and independent enough to make tough decisions that are in the interests of the licence fee payer. It has a duty and an accountability to the licence fee payer, and as it develops and matures it will be its responsibility to determine the way in which mechanisms for accountability are defined.
	The hon. Gentleman and I disagree on switchover and switchover costs. He will see from the regulatory impact assessment that the additional costs that are likely to fall on the BBC are the switchover costs. Throughout the next charter period, the National Audit Office will oversee the self-help programme when the level of the licence fee is eventually determined. I think that that is an important statement of accountability.
	The hon. Gentleman and I differ on how the switchover costs should be funded. The principles relating to spectrum charging were agreed in the Communications Act 2003, as the first chapter in this episode of digital switchover. The costs of switchover are broadcasting costs, and historically broadcasting costs that have matched periods of rapid change have always been borne by the BBC. We believe that that should continue.
	The hon. Gentleman raised an important point aboutconcessions. Again, I am happy to consider representations on ways in which the existing list of concessions might be altered or amended, although ultimately someone will have to pay for the cost of those concessions. I shall, however, be happy to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments receive a response as part of the debate on the charter.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes so much of the White Paper. The differences between us are clear, but Labour Members believe that the proposals on which we differ are in the interests of the continuation of universal free-to-view broadcasting and the licence fee payer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many Members are hoping to catch my eye. Accordingly, I make a plea for brief questions and answers.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that some of us who have been ardent defenders of the public sector in all its forms have supported the BBC for many years, and have heard many statements like the one that she has delivered today? It is all about jam tomorrow: things are going to be different. Does she agree that the BBC has wasted wonderful opportunities in the past 10 to 15 years? With the advent of all these television stations, it could have been a giant in the field. Sadly, that has not happened. I hope that when the move to Manchester takes place, some changes will be made and that we do not have a repeat of what we have had recently: groups of people from the Murdoch empire running the BBC and its political programmes and following a Daily Mail agenda. One of them has had more transplants than Michael Jackson. I hope that some changes will be made and that the BBC will be more representative of the whole of the political spectrum, and not just the Tories.

Tessa Jowell: Public support for the BBC is not reflected in "jam tomorrow"; it is reflected in the polling and consultation that we have conducted over two years. My hon. Friend makes an important point about, first, value for money and maintaining the confidence of the licence fee payer and, secondly, the importance of accuracy and impartiality in BBC news and current affairs broadcasting. That will be a charter responsibility and I know it is a responsibility that the BBC takes extremely seriously. If at any time any Member of Parliament feels that those principles have been breached, the complaints procedure is available to him or her.

Nigel Evans: How independent will the trust be from the BBC? Does she agree that it is always better to have an independent body investigating an executive?

Tessa Jowell: The trust will be structurally separate from the executive and, as I have said on a number of occasions, will have a different accountability to the licence fee payer. There will be oversight and scrutiny of the way in which it discharges its competition functions by Ofcom, and value for money scrutiny will be provided through the joint studies that the trust will conduct with the National Audit Office. The House can have confidence in the independence of the trust, but it is a new body with a reputation that has to be earned and that will make or break the likelihood of its long-term continuation.

Alan Keen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ensuring that the BBC maintains its uniqueness. In order to help it reach the 25 per cent. minimum of external production, may I suggest that she contact the BBC and say that we should have a parliamentary version of "The Office"? Would she support me in saying that there could be nobody better to write the script, and even play the main part, than the shadow Secretary of State, based on his performance this afternoon?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for his work on the Select Committee. He is a little harsh on the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire).

Gregory Campbell: The fourth of the six new purposes mentions reflecting the identity of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. How will that be done? For example, how will BBC Northern Ireland be represented on the trust and the executive board? What assurance can she give that the two bodies will not increase, rather than decrease, the bureaucracy that many believe exists within the BBC?

Tessa Jowell: A governor will have responsibility for Northern Ireland, and value for money will be a discipline that will apply throughout everything the BBC does.

Janet Anderson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the support in the north-west region for the BBC's proposals to move a significant amount of its production to Manchester, which will enhance the creative economy of the region and constituencies such as my own. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the move will go ahead?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. This proposal has widespread support in the House and I urge Members with a constituency or regional interest to make their views well known to the BBC. The impact of such an approach on the economy of the north-west and Greater Manchester is well demonstrated, and there are many reasons why the BBC should rise to the challenge of spreading venture capital for creativity way beyond the M25.

Mark Pritchard: What extra funding will be given to the BBC in the regions, and does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC in the regions does an excellent job? I am thinking of news-gathering organisations such as BBC Midlands Today and—last, but not least—BBC Radio Shropshire.

Tessa Jowell: I am sure that I can commend all the BBC regional television stations and the excellence of BBC Radio Shropshire.

Anne Begg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper and her comments today should give BBC viewers and listeners no reason to fear for the BBC's future? In fact, what has been mapped out suggests a strengthening of the BBC's uniqueness and its role not just in the United Kingdom, but across the world. However, they should be afraid—very afraid—of the comments that we heard today from the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire).

Tessa Jowell: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says.

Philip Davies: The Secretary of State referred to a targeted assistance programme for the poorest people, in order to offset the cost of digital switchover. Does she believe that that is a welfare cost that should be picked up by central Government, or a broadcasting cost that should be picked up by the licence fee payer?

Tessa Jowell: The Government's view is that it is a broadcasting cost, so it should be met by the licence fee.

Michael Wills: I should first declare an interest, having worked for the BBC. As an independent producer, I both benefited from BBC commissions and suffered because of the way in which they were managed. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a far-reaching and important statement, but I should be grateful for her reassurance that the new commissioning system will not damage the BBC's ability to retain a significant production base. That base has always been the key training house for the British television industry; indeed, it has been responsible for much that is excellent in that industry. I am particularly concerned about analytical current affairs, which there is a dire need for, as the recent Power report showed.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I hope that I can reassure him that an enormous amount of consideration has been given to the structure of the joint commissioning proposal, precisely because we recognise the importance of the BBC's retaining sufficient scale in-house.

Pete Wishart: Will the Secretary of State understand the bemusement that will be felt in Scotland at this promotion of British citizenship through the re-branding of the BBC as the British bulldog corporation? In the meantime, we will lose our national voice by losing our governor. The 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock news service is increasingly irrelevant and unnecessary in Scotland. Instead of waving flags, can the BBC not accept the new constitutional reality of the UK and set its agenda accordingly?

Tessa Jowell: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by pointing out that the specific purpose is to reflect the diversity of the UK's nations and regions. He will no doubt read with interest in the White Paper the references to Gaelic broadcasting.

Patrick McFadden: Most Members will support a well-funded, high-quality and strong BBC. As the Secretary of State knows, broadcasting today, particularly television, is vastly different from 10 years ago, and in 10 years' time it will be vastly different again. Does she therefore accept that there is a duty to ensure not only a strong BBC, but strong competitors? Will she say a bit more about how her Department plans to create an environment in which, as new technologies unfold and choice increases, we have not only the high-quality public service broadcasting from the BBC that we all want to see, but strong competitors that can produce and launch initiatives and provide similarly high-quality broadcasting? Overall, it is the viewer and listener who would be the winner through taking such an approach.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. The licence fee payers—the people of this country—are best served by having a wide choice in broadcasting. A unique challenge for broadcasting in this country is balancing the interests and scale of the BBC—which is, in any theoretical formulation, an intervention in the market, but which is there by virtue of long-established national consensus—with the importance of promoting innovation and diversity, as well as inward investment from other countries, subject to our regulatory system. The White Paper achieves that balance and rigour, maintaining choice in broadcasting for licence fee payers.

Greg Clark: The Secretary of State said that the White Paper is rich in substance, but is not the truth that it is lightweight and vapid in its reforms? Even the concept of the trust is limited. The White Paper says that the BBC Trust will not be a trust in the legal sense and its members will not be trustees of any property. Who are the trustees of the BBC's property, intellectual and physical, if not the trust?

Tessa Jowell: My answers are no and no to the hon. Gentleman's first two points. The trust will not be a legal entity in the fiduciary sense. It will hold the responsibilities of accountability, regulation and governance of the BBC on behalf of the licence fee payer. The hon. Gentleman is arguing about a fine legal point, but licence fee payers, with whom we have had extensive discussions on the issue, understand precisely what the trust is intended to achieve and support it by a majority for that reason.

Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the logic of the move to Manchester—I note her welcome for that—is not regeneration, as the Liberal Democrats seem to think, but about unlocking the creativity of the whole nation and ensuring that we build up the clusters and cultures that can deliver the television of the future? In that context, can she make it clear to those in the BBC who are resistant to the move that they cannot use it as a bargaining chip in licence fee negotiations, because the logic of the move has to be determined entirely by what is good for the viewing public?

Tessa Jowell: I am sure that those with sense in the BBC will listen to my hon. Friend and take seriously what he says. The creative gain will be enormous and the gain for the BBC in establishing a broader identity will be enormous. The potential for collaboration with other broadcasters will also be enormous. All of that provides a compelling case in support of the proposal. It will ultimately be a decision for the BBC, which will have to produce the business case and the arguments, but my hon. Friend should be in no doubt about the strength of the support for the proposal on this side of the House.

Edward Leigh: The Secretary of State knows that for years the Public Accounts Committee has been campaigning for the present voluntary arrangements with the National Audit Office, which we have had for the past year or two. It is true that the White Paper will strengthen the arrangements somewhat, and I thank her for that. However, does she realise that we will still be missing the holy grail of external audit, whereby the external auditor has the untrammelled right to investigate a public sector body, which cannot veto that investigation? Under the White Paper, the interim arrangements will continue. The Public Accounts Committee met the National Audit Office last night and we decided to continue campaigning. Will the Secretary of State keep an open mind on this, because the spending of £3 billion of public money should be accountable to this House, the national Parliament?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the arguments that have been resisted by this Government and the BBC. Like him, I welcome the settlement that the White Paper provides and I welcome the fact that the NAO will be invited to exercise scrutiny over the self-help and efficiency savings over the next period of the licence fee. I simply reiterate the point that the BBC is a unique organisation. The arrangements are unique and it is the responsibility of all those within the BBC to make them work in the public interest.

Point of Order

Don Foster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that Mr.   Speaker has frequently deprecated the provision of statements and other information to members of the press ahead of their provision to Members of Parliament. Are you therefore willing to draw to his attention my concern about the statement that we have just heard? Although the Secretary of State was especially generous in her interpretation of the ministerial code in making the statement available to me and to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) in advance of her making it to the House, you might be surprised to learn that members of the press received it one and a quarter hours before we did.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that that might be the usual practice, with the proviso that the press should observe certain procedures, such as an embargo. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman says and I hope that those procedures have been observed in the present case.

William Cash: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Even if there was an embargo, the press at least had the opportunity to look at the statement, whereas we had no opportunity even to see it until the Secretary of State sat down. It seems to me that that is disrespectful to Parliament, and the practice should be deprecated and cease.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).

Licensing of Child Location Services

Judy Mallaber: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a licensing regime for the sale or promotion of any service providing data on the location of children where these data have been derived from any mobile telephone network, satellite system or other electronic or communications medium.
	Only weeks ago, I knew nothing about electronic location services, but now I seem to hear about them everywhere I go and I am becoming paranoid about whether I am being tracked. I just saw an item on CNN about CeBIT, the world's largest annual high-tech trade fair, which opened in Hanover last week and at which more than 6,000 companies are showing off their latest wares for the IT and communications market. There was an item about the sector of the fair devoted to devices for tracking individuals—location services. One exhibitor said that he was amazed that more parents had not yet invested in his child location product—"Just pop it in your kid's backpack and get peace of mind." But what if it is someone else who pops that tracker into your kid's backpack—someone else who wants to trace your child? The exhibitor said nothing about how he checks whether he has sold his product to a parent or to a paedophile.
	That illustrates my main point: in the right hands, location data—knowing where someone is—can be valuable and reassuring, but in the wrong hands such data are extremely dangerous. My Bill will set up a licensing and regulatory regime to make sure that those services are in the right hands and that those who are being tracked know about it.
	I also have a broader point: for the first time in our history, we have it within our power—every one of us, not just James Bond types or the police—to track another person 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The mass consumer market is about to be flooded—is being flooded—with cheap, easy-to-use tracking devices; some are even being given away free. In addition to special tracking devices, there are services to track people through their mobile phones. Since the children's charities internet adviser told me of the new industry, I have learned of three journalists who in recent weeks have used such services to track people without their knowledge. The supposed safeguards to stop that happening did not work; they can be evaded all too easily. It is hard to believe but it is true: Members could all easily be being tracked now.
	Urgent debate is needed and controls must be established, not least because it is in the name of child protection that the new surveillance technologies are starting to reach the mass consumer market. Let us take the Teddyfone as an example. Launched last November, it is not hard to guess what the device looks like: its fetching blue and white livery will instantly appeal to the hungry eyes of at least the younger end of the 4 to 10-year-old market in which the company says it is interested. It will easily fit into tiny hands, pockets or backpacks. A Teddyfone does what any phone will do—it lets someone talk to the person who has it—but just sending a text message automatically and silently converts it into a listening device. As Teddyfone told a colleague of mine, if the child knew that someone was listening, it would defeat the point. The Teddyfone also provides information about the physical whereabouts of the person carrying the phone.
	All mobiles are now potential tracking devices. When any mobile phone is switched on, it is transmitting and receiving signals from individual, geographically specific radio cells on the owner's mobile phone network. The network knows where someone is, possibly to a matter of metres. If the phone has been turned off, has run out of power or is out of range of the network, the network knows where it was at that last connected moment.
	The emergency services have always been able to access that information, if necessary. However, the UK's mobile phone networks have now put that location information on sale to the public and, so far, about 30 companies, of which Teddyfone is one, are packaging and selling it. Some are doing so as part of so-called child safety products. In the case of Teddyfone, parents do not have to go to the trouble of speaking to their child; they just go to a website to see where he or she is, or ask for a map showing that information to be sent to their mobile phone.
	There are lots of other examples. The i-Kids phone even lets parents listen to their child's conversation, which is not a very good recipe for relationships with their teenager or for harmonious family life. That phone runs on satellite-based technology: the global positioning system. It is great to have satellite navigation in one's car to find a route, or so that one can be found by the emergency services in the event of an accident, but it is dangerous if, say, a violent man were to post a device to his estranged partner in a refuge with an anonymous post office box number in order to track her down, and that is very easy to do.
	Getting back to child protection, in theory the child must consent to his phone being tracked in the first place, but is there not something a bit odd about the idea of a four year-old, part of Teddyfone's target market, being able to give and maintain consent? An oppressive parent could insist on the child giving consent, or a devious paedophile skilled at grooming could easily find a way around the necessity, for example, by registering the second phone to himself before handing it to the child or hiding it in his backpack. To extend that to adults, The Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre showed recently that someone needs possession of another person's mobile phone for only a couple of minutes to appear to give the consent required under mobile phone companies' current procedures. The person he was tracking never got any of the warning messages that were meant to have been sent to her. Even more scarily, a hacker's website has recently published information telling how to spoof consent without even having to have temporary possession of the target's phone; all that is needed is the number. If someone has a person's number, he can track them. It is not a problem. I know where the website is, but I am not going to tell Members. It is possible to track people just through their phone numbers.
	There are other devices. Pupillo can listen and can watch as well, even in the dark. It was brought out recently and sees in the dark for anyone who has the number to dial. It may be ideal for a baby monitor, but what else will it be used for? That is a serious question.
	There are meant to be controls over location services. The Home Office, the police and children's charities negotiated with the UK's six largest networks and agreed a voluntary code of practice governing the deployment of child location services and location services generally. The code is meant to cover the identity of the person doing the tracking, his relationship with the person being tracked, getting consent and giving warnings, but in practice, as journalists have found, the voluntary code can only too easily be evaded—if it is applied in the first place or if people knew that it is meant to be applied. Furthermore, it does not apply to new tracking devices using the GPS system or new technologies that bypass mobile phone networks. They are being sold without any code of practice governing their deployment. That needs to be checked and followed up.
	Appeals to the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry to get involved have so far drawn a blank. In one case, the DTI gave financial assistance to a company that was developing a child tracking product. When asked whether it had considered possible criminal or other misuses of such technology, the DTI answered that such questions were not part of its business. Indeed, it gave the firm in question a prize for innovation. When DTI officials were asked whether they should have consulted child protection specialists, they said, "No."
	I hesitate before calling for yet another national debate, but someone somewhere needs to take responsibility for the situation before it gets out of hand. The DTI and the Home Office have done excellent work on other child protection and technology issues; now they need to tackle the problem I have set out. The internet was kicking around for 20 years or more without anyone taking much notice—it was just the plaything of a few boffins—but once it started to penetrate the mass market, we realised that it raised many social and political issues. It is a great force for good, but it also allows trade in child pornography, the movement of criminal funds and other dangers.
	Let us talk now about the implications of this latest surveillance technology for family life, children's safety and society as a whole. A child location service can give parents peace of mind, but what peace of mind will they have if such services remain unregulated and open to any stranger to misuse? That stranger may be one of those people who are so clever at grooming a child.
	The issue is not just about child protection. We are sleep-walking into a world where jealous partners or obsessed stalkers could spy on us simply by obtaining our phone number. We must act now before that new surveillance industry gets out of hand. We must establish controls and a licensing regime fast.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Judy Mallaber, Kali Mountford, Annette Brooke, Margaret Moran, Derek Wyatt, Mrs. Betty Williams, Paddy Tipping, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Ian Taylor, Siobhain McDonagh, Roger Berry and Mary Creagh.

Licensing of Child Location Services

Judy Mallaber accordingly presented a Bill to establish a licensing regime for the sale or promotion of any service providing data on the location of children where these data have been derived from any mobile telephone network, satellite system or other electronic or communications medium: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 144].

Animal Welfare Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 10th January 2006 (Animal Welfare Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1.   Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2.   Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3.   The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clause relating to the docking of dogs' tails. Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. 
			 Remaining proceedings on consideration. Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. 
		
	
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
	The change in the programme motion is intended to ensure that there is a clear opportunity to discuss all aspects of the Bill, which is particularly important when there is a need to debate fully a controversial issue. We will have free votes, which have been facilitated by Government amendments, as well as a wide range of other proposed amendments. We should remember that the Bill has already been well debated at eight Committee sittings and during pre-legislative scrutiny.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Animal Welfare Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Docking of dogs' tails

'(1)   A person commits an offence if—
	(a)   he removes the whole or any part of a dog's tail, otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment;
	(b)   he causes the whole or any part of a dog's tail to be removed by another person, otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment.
	(2)   A person commits an offence if—
	(a)   he is responsible for a dog,
	(b)   another person removes the whole or any part of the dog's tail, otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment, and
	(c)   he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening.
	(3)   Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the dog is a certified working dog that is not more than 5 days old.
	(4)   For the purposes of subsection (3), a dog is a certified working dog if a veterinary surgeon has certified that the dog is likely to be used for work in connection with—
	(a)   law enforcement,
	(b)   activities of Her Majesty's armed forces,
	(c)   emergency rescue,
	(d)   lawful pest control, or
	(e)   the lawful shooting of animals.
	(5)   It is a defence for a person accused of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) to show that he reasonably believed that the dog was one in relation to which subsection (3) applies.
	(6)   A person commits an offence if—
	(a)   he owns a subsection (3) dog, and
	(b)   fails to take reasonable steps to secure that, before the dog is 3 months old, it is identified as a subsection (3) dog in accordance with regulations made under this section.
	(7)   A person commits an offence if—
	(a)   he shows a dog at an event to which members of the public are admitted on payment of a fee,
	(b)   the dog's tail has been wholly or partly removed (in England and Wales or elsewhere), and
	(c)   removal took place on or after the commencement day.
	(8)   Where a dog is shown only for the purpose of demonstrating its working ability, subsection (7) does not apply if the dog is a subsection (3) dog.
	(9)   It is a defence for a person accused of an offence under subsection (7) to show that he reasonably believed—
	(a)   that the event was not one to which members of the public were admitted on payment of an entrance fee,
	(b)   that the removal took place before the commencement day, or
	(c)   that the dog was one in relation to which subsection (8) applies.
	(10)   A person commits an offence if he knowingly gives false information to a veterinary surgeon in connection with the giving of a certificate for the purposes of this section.
	(11)   The appropriate authority may by regulations—
	(a)   make provision about the giving by veterinary surgeons of certificates for the purposes of this section;
	(b)   make provision about the identification of dogs as subsection (3) dogs;
	(c)   make provision about the functions of inspectors in relation to certificates for the purposes of this section and the identification of dogs as subsection (3) dogs.
	(12)   Power to make regulations under subsection (11) includes power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential provision or transitional provision or savings.
	(13)   Before making regulations under subsection (11), the appropriate national authority shall consult such persons appearing to the authority to represent any interests concerned as the authority considers appropriate.
	(14)   In this section—
	"commencement day" means the day on which this section comes into force;
	"subsection (3) dog" means a dog whose tail has, on or after the commencement day, been wholly or partly removed without contravening subsection (1), because of the application of subsection (3).'.—[Mr. Bradshaw.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a), in line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
	Amendment (b), in line 36, leave out subsection (8).
	Amendment (d), in line 41, at end insert ', or'.
	Amendment (c), in line 42, leave out from 'day' to end of line 43.
	Amendment (e), in line 44, leave out subsections (10) to (13).
	Amendment (f), in line 63, leave out from beginning to end of line 66.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 21, clause 5, after 'apply', insert—
	'(a)   to the docking of the tail of a working gundog; or
	(b)   '.
	Government amendment No. 38
	Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 25, at end insert—
	'(6)   In subsection (4), "docking of the tail of a dog" means the deliberate removal of any part of a tail of a dog if the removal is carried out—
	(a)   by a veterinary surgeon; and
	(b)   on a dog which is less than 10 days old.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 39 to 60.

Ben Bradshaw: The purpose of the first part of our deliberations this afternoon is to facilitate a debate and then, if the House desires, votes on the docking of dogs' tails. When we published the Bill, the Government said that we would not seek to be a persuader on such a contentious issue, where views on both sides are strongly held and the evidence disputed. We said that we would listen to Members' views.
	In Committee, the majority of Members who spoke advocated a total ban on the docking of dogs' tails. Some Members said that they would prefer an exemption for working dogs and no Member who spoke supported the status quo of allowing cosmetic docking. However, all members of the Committee, whatever their views, said that they felt that the issue should be opened up more widely to all Members. That is what we are doing now.
	We are offering the House three options—first, a ban on tail docking, but with an exemption for working dogs; secondly, a ban with no exemption for working dogs; and thirdly, the status quo, which allows cosmetic docking. Of course, it will remain possible under all those options for a vet to dock a dog's tail if that is necessary for medical reasons—for example, because the tail is damaged or has become diseased.
	Members who wish to support option one—a ban, with an exemption for working dogs—should vote for new clause 8, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and against amendments (a) to (f), which stand in my name. Members who want a total ban should vote for the new clause and those amendments. Members who wish to retain the status quo should vote against the new clause.
	I wish to make it clear that I support an exemption for working dogs. I appreciate that that puts me in the somewhat unusual position of not voting for my own amendments. Amendments (a) to (f), which stand in my name, are intended to facilitate the deliberations of the House.
	I do not intend to repeat the long arguments that were aired in Committee, so that as many Members as possible can contribute to the debate. No doubt, Members will have been lobbied both for and against a working dogs exemption. However, to help the debate, I wish to say something about how the new clause banning docking, with a working dogs exemption, would work.
	One of the main concerns expressed in Committee by those hon. Members whose minds were not already made up was that any exemption for working dogs should be workable and enforceable. The Government agreed, and we have endeavoured to achieve that in the new clause. Under the new clause, only a vet could preventively dock a dog's tail provided that, first, the dog is no more than five days old, and secondly, the vet has been shown specific evidence that the dog is likely to be used for work in connection with law enforcement, the armed forces, emergency rescue, pest control or the lawful shooting of animals.

David Drew: I am sorry to interrupt so early in my hon. Friend's explanation. However, the law is very clear that tail docking should be carried out only by a qualified veterinary surgeon, but the number of surgeons willing to do that operation and the number of dogs whose tails are docked do not correspond. Quite simply, the law is not being enforced at the moment. That is the problem. Why is the law more likely to be enforced if we agree to the exemption compared with current practice, where the law is an ass?

Ben Bradshaw: I shall come to some of the extra safeguards that we have put into the new clause in a minute, but there would be a fairly significant reduction in the overall number of dogs that could be docked legally, to about 20 per cent. of the current number. That is our estimate of the number of dogs docked currently that then go on to be worked.

Richard Ottaway: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, of course. I am about to explain some of the safeguards in a little more detail, but I am happy to take another intervention.

Richard Ottaway: New clause 8, on my reading of it, relates to dogs. What is the position for other animals—cats and, particularly, sheep, most of which are already docked?

Ben Bradshaw: That is all in the Bill. There is a general prohibition on mutilation, with exemptions that will be set out in regulations. Those exemptions will not change the status quo—for example, for animals whose tails are legally docked currently—because the Government's original intention was to deal with the issue by regulation. However, feelings were so strong among hon. Members on both sides of the argument on Second Reading and in Committee that it was thought more appropriate for the issue to be settled once and for all in the Bill, rather than leaving it for future Governments to settle by regulation, which would not allow the same parliamentary scrutiny and debate.

James Paice: For the benefit of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, will the Minister confirm that if new clause 8 and the relevant amendment are both rejected, there will not be a change to the Bill, and he will undertake to introduce a total exemption for tail docking of dogs in the regulatory process?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes.
	The vet would issue the owner with a certificate showing that the dog had been docked legitimately and detailing the evidence that they had seen. The puppy must be microchipped before it is three months old and the microchip number added to the certificate. The effectiveness of the new clause hangs on the definition of a dog that is "likely" to work. The Government have sought to define that tightly, but we also propose to introduce a delegated power to allow the appropriate national authority to tighten it further as necessary. I will explain to the House how we would use the power initially if the new clause is passed unamended. Through regulations, we would prescribe a template certificate that a vet must use for each dog that they dock and which would record the details of the vet, the owner, the date of docking and the microchip number. The vet and the owner would sign it—the owner to confirm that they had not provided false information. Providing false information would be an offence carrying a penalty of up to 51 weeks in prison, or a level 4 fine—currently £2,500—or both. The regulations would specify, too, the evidence that the vet must be shown before they could certify that a dog was likely to work. For law enforcers, for example, that could be a police identification badge and evidence from the head of a police force's breeding programme that the dog was intended to be worked.

Rob Marris: One could drive a coach and horses through the regulations on law enforcement by taking a four-year-old dog to the vet and saying, "I'm going to use this dog to protect my scrapyard. Keeping trespassers out is law enforcement, so can you dock its tail?" Because proposed subsection (4) of the new clause does not say that the dog must be used predominantly as a guard dog, after the scrapyard owner has used the dog for two days he can sell it to a man in a pub as a docked dog and escape scot-free.

Ben Bradshaw: There would not be any circumstances under which a four-year-old could have its tail docked. [Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friend meant four days.

John Bercow: I am glad that the Minister has abandoned his self-denying ordinance, because I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee and thus did not hear his mellifluous tones, but I am more than happy to do so this afternoon. Greatman though he is, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) has an insatiably suspicious disposition, and I am not sure that his suspicion is justified. Will the Minister clarify the regulation-making process? Why cannot we see—or perhaps we can—draft regulations before the final passage of the Bill, as that always makes me much more sanguine than knowing that they will be published at a later, unspecified date?

Ben Bradshaw: I do not rule that out, because the Bill still has to proceed to another place. If it will reassure the hon. Gentleman, I am certainly prepared to consider that suggestion with officials to see if we can do so when the Bill returns to the House. Briefly, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I accept that there are Members on both sides of the House who will not vote for the exemption because they do not think that it is drawn tightly enough or is enforceable. I take a different view and I urge them to listen patiently to the extra safeguards that we have included. If that does not change their minds, the way in which they cast their vote is their prerogative—we are offering a free vote, as is every party in the House.

Peter Atkinson: Would I be prosecuted if I went to a rescue centre and bought a dog with a docked tail that was born after the commencement of the measure?

Ben Bradshaw: Not if the tail had been docked legally. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman would not be responsible, as the offence was committed by the person who docked the tail illegally, or perhaps by the vet who allowed it to be done illegally.
	As I was saying, the vet would issue the owner with a certificate showing that the dog had been docked legitimately and detailing the evidence that the vet had seen. The pup must be microchipped before it is three months old and the microchip number added to the certificate. The new clause includes provisions to drive down the demand for cosmetically docked dogs, which is extremely important for Members who are considering voting for the exemption, but would like more reassurance that it will bite—excuse the pun. Experience from Sweden and Germany—countries with a complete ban and an exemption for working dogs, respectively—suggests that not restricting the showing of docked dogs results in continuing demand for them and incentives to find ways around a ban, including importing. Therefore, the Government propose restricting the showing of legally docked dogs to demonstrations of their working ability. That is not because of any distaste for showing, but to support the aim that only dogs intended for working are docked. That would ensure that the number of dogs docked would be kept to a minimum.
	Amendments (a) to (f), tabled in my name, would remove the exemption from working dogs currently set out in the new clause. The amendments also remove the exemption that allows certified docked dogs to be shown to demonstrate their working ability. Under the amendments, no dog docked after the provision is enacted could be shown.

John Redwood: My question relates to the Minister's earlier point. I believe that in many cases people cannot decide for some time—certainly not by the five-day stage—whether a dog is suitable as a working dog, so is the intention to give people latitude to have several puppies to choose from for their working purpose, or would the exemption be narrow and possibly lead to problems?

Ben Bradshaw: In the end, we will have to leave it to the courts to decide whether the intention at the time was for the dogs to be worked. The right hon. Gentleman is right—it is not always possible to know for certain at the time of the docking that the dog will definitely be worked, even though the likelihood exists and can be certified by a vet who sees the dam. That is why some of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members are concerned about an exemption. Nobody has proposed a tighter exemption because it is difficult to devise one. We have done our best to do so in order to facilitate a free vote.

Lembit �pik: I support the Government's new clause, but does the Minister accept the view that I takethat a blanket ban on docking is bad for animal welfare because some working dogs will necessarily suffer if they are not docked, yet are used in perfectly legal activities in the countryside? Would he, like me, counsel those who want a blanket ban to recognise that that will have the opposite effect in some cases, by increasing animal suffering rather than reducing it, as the Minister is attempting to do in a reasonable way in new clause 8?

Ben Bradshaw: That was the point. The reason I am supporting the exemption is that I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	If the House chooses not to vote for the new clause, that will leave it open, as I reaffirmed to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) a moment ago, to the Government to make regulations exempting tail-docking from the general ban on mutilations prescribed in clause 5. The Government would subsequently be able to alter the law without recourse to primary legislation. Despite the strength of feeling on all sides, the House may still detect some virtue in this flexibility.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) would introduce an exemption for working dogs from the ban on mutilations. However, there are problems with the drafting. Amendment No. 5 seeks to define a term that does not appear in amendment No. 4. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's new clause is a more appropriate way to achieve a ban on docking, with a working dog exemption. I hope that on this basis he will not press his amendments.

Eric Martlew: I may be wrong, but I think that I heard my hon. Friend say that there was an exemption for working dogs in Sweden. My understanding is that that is not the case. Does he intend to name the breeds to which the exemptions will apply?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I will not name the breeds now. That will be subject to regulation, but the breeds will be named. That will be part of the template document for the vet, and they would be tightly drawn. My hon. Friend misheard what I said about Germany and Sweden. Sweden has a total ban. Germany has a ban with an exemption for working dogs, but in both countries Governments and animal welfare organisations argue that the much more important aspect is the ban on showing. That is what we are including in the exemption. The ban on showing acts as the biggest disincentive to illegal docking or the import of docked breeds.

Bob Spink: Before the Minister moves on from specific breeds, will he confirm that it is possible for cross breeds to make excellent working dogs?

Ben Bradshaw: I will give hon. Members a further insight into the breeds that we would consider if the new clause were passed without amendment. The exemption for working dogs would include spaniels, hunt point retrieve breeds, working terriers and crosses involving one or more of those types.

Michael Wills: Will my hon. Friend clarify the evidence on which he has formulated the proposed exemption? What is the potential damage to working dogs if docking is forbidden? [Interruption.]

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment says from a sedentary position that the matter is disputed. He takes a different view from me, and I suspect that we will be in different Lobbies later this evening. Not only the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, but the police have produced evidence on that point in the past few days. The police have provided compelling evidence on the number of dogs that they use in important security operations that have had to have their tails docked later in life because of injuries that they have sustained in the course of their work.

Paddy Tipping: The Minister has made my point for me. Working dogs are used for far more than shooting, and there are police, rescue and customs dogs. The police are the only body that has provided any real evidence, and they have come out very strongly in favour of an exemption for their working dogs.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend may have received a letter from Assistant Chief Constable Peter Vaughan, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers working dogs representative. Peter Vaughan has worked in the field for many years, and he has appealed to the House to support new clause 8, because it is common for working dogs to sustain serious injuries that require surgery if their tails are not docked.

Andrew Love: rose

Philip Hollobone: rose

Ben Bradshaw: I give way to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone).

Philip Hollobone: Has the Minister considered the case of the old English sheepdog, which used to be a working dog? Many old English sheepdog owners prefer to dock their dogs for reasons of hygiene. Has he dismissed heavy-coated breeds, which are at risk of perennial fouling and which will be caught by the new legislation?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. The new clause does not include such breeds. The best answer to that problem is to clean the dog.

Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for eventually giving way. I am a complete novice in this matter and want to focus on certification, about which the veterinary profession has some concerns. Will he detail how we can be certain that dogs as young as four or five days will be working dogs?

Ben Bradshaw: As I have said, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, which is why I am sure that some hon. Members will not be satisfied even by the tightly drawn exemption that we have devised. Given the extra safeguards that we have introducedthe provisions on showing are unprecedented in animal welfare legislationwe will achieve a lot more than countries such as Sweden, which has a total ban.

Evan Harris: Does the Minister recognise the difference between carefully formulated scientific evidence and the experience of police officers, which is valid but anecdotal? Will he explain why he thinks that the veterinary associations that support a ban on docking working dogs take a different view from the police? Does he believe that it is right, at least in the first instance, to trust the view of medical and scientific experts, rather than the anecdotal experience of people who currently work with working dogs?

Ben Bradshaw: It has long been the view of the majority of the council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to oppose all tail docking, but, at the same time, there have been vets who have been prepared to carry it out. It is important that hon. Members listen to the views of people from all organisationsbe they vets, police or people who have intimate working knowledge of dogsand make up their own minds. I am not trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman of my view; I am simply trying to give him and other hon. Members options so that they can reach a view and express it in the way that they vote this evening.

Shona McIsaac: I was interested in what my hon. Friend said about the police. I understand that the police have something like 2,000 or 2,500 working dogs. Will he tell the House what percentage of those working dogs sustained an injury so severe that it necessitated amputation of their tail?

Ben Bradshaw: It may help if I quote from the letter dated 9 March that I received from Assistant Chief Constable Peter Vaughan, who said:
	Twenty working dogs have had to have their tails docked as a result of injury in the last two years.
	He goes on to say:
	Experience over many years of working with police dogs has shown us that certain dog types, performing certain roles; usually a search function where dogs are often required to work in difficult terrain and confined spaces are susceptible to causing injury to their tails. Any docking of new puppies is restricted to such dog types and conducted in order to minimise the risk of such injury, which can be particularly distressing and require a protracted period of recuperation.
	I cannot do any more than quote from a third party.

David Taylor: If we are talking about scientific evidence, surely the Minister should tell the House what proportion of working dogs, or indeed police dogs, that represented. The control would be the proportion of tail docking that took place in the non-working dog population, among breeds that tend to have their tails docked, although that has been shaped by fashion. Tail docking used to be a tax avoidance device. In the 18th century, it was introduced to avoid the tax that had been imposed on certain types of working dog.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend will have to forgive me, but I do not know what proportion of working dogs Assistant Chief Constable Vaughan is talking about. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber a little earlier when I gave the overall figures, but I repeat that, even with the exemption, at least 80 per cent. of current dockings would be illegal. The cosmetic dockings that I think most hon. Members want to consign to the history books would not happen.

James Paice: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: I will give way a final time, because this is turning into a debate.

James Paice: Forgive me, but I think that this is a debate. However, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm my impression from the figures in the letter from the police that it would be a mistake to compare the 20 working police dogs that have had to have therapeutic docking in the past two years with the total number of 2,500? The vast majority of the 2,500 working police dogs will not be of a type that works in confined spaces. They will be Alsatians and Labradors that are used for other purposes. A much smaller proportionspaniels, predominantlywould be used in those circumstances and so might be at risk. It is not a direct comparison to talk about 20 out of 2,500.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I hope that he will forgive meI was not trying to say that we are not having a debate. There have been a series of interventions. There are hon. Members who have come here to make a considered contribution and I want to allow them time to do that.

James McGovern: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: This really is the final time that I will give way and then I will conclude.

James McGovern: I understand that a ban already exists in Scotland. If the same does not apply in England, it will lead to tail-docking tourism, whereby Scottish people bring their dogs down to Carlisle, get their tails docked and then go back up to Scotland with them. Is that a scenario that the Minister has considered?

Ben Bradshaw: The Scots have not yet legislated on the matter, but, in theory, my hon. Friend is right and that would be one of the consequences of the devolution that I imagine he and the rest of us supported.
	In conclusion, the House has three options. Those who favour the status quo and the flexibility afforded by the delegated power in clause 5 should oppose the Second Reading of the new clause. Those who want a ban on cosmetic docking, but with an exemption for working dogs, should vote for the new clause tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If the new clause is given a Second Reading by the House, those who wish to go further and ban all tail docking should vote for the amendments that stand in my name. However, those who are persuaded by the arguments in favour of a working dog exemption should vote against those amendments.

Bill Wiggin: First, let me welcome the attack of common sense that the Government seem to have had since the Bill was in Committee. Perhaps it was a rush of blood to the Minister's head that caused him to abandon the status quo, for which he had the blessing of the Secretary of State, take the temperature of the Committee and conclude that a total ban on docking was needed. I welcome the change that has happened since.
	We all agree that what is needed is a cool head and a measured approach. At all stages, we must bear in mind that any sort of docking is illegal unless it is carried out by a qualified vet. The next step is to decide whether the procedure is necessary and whether it hurts. The evidence is overabundant, because everyone has an opinion. I am sure that it probably can hurt, but usually does not and that it is sometimes necessary, but it is not a feature that I personally find attractive in a dog. I am left to make a decision based on the overwhelming area of agreement, which is that the vet who performs the operation must do it properly and legally. If that is the case, I can see no reason why people who are so committed to animal welfare that they take six years to qualify, and end up with enormous student debts, should not be more than able to decide whether they feel comfortable with the operation, and why that should not be enough. That is satisfactory. There is no need for a ban.

David Drew: That is the crux of the problem. Tail docking is not taught in veterinary schools any more, and the vast majority of vets do not want to do it. Those who do it are an ageing part of the profession. Surely it is almost inevitable that tail docking will die out. It is just that the law will follow that. Is that not a problem?

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing that that is the nub of the problem. If he is right and tail docking dies outpersonally, as I said earlier, I do not favour the look of a docked tailthat is how I would prefer things to proceed. Docking would die out because people did not want to do it, rather than because we legislated for that in the Bill.

Angela Browning: Is it not the case that a great many veterinary surgeons today specialise purely in companion animals and small animal care, and that there are fewer vets who serve rural areas, including farm practices, and cover the sort of working dogs that we are talking about? That is why the views of the professional bodies are not necessarily representative of the minority who are specialists in rural areas.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and is absolutely right. We should not make decisions based on the number of vets available to carry out the procedure. People who own dogs have to deal with the issue for themselves. I do not like bans and I do not think that there is a need for a ban. Bans are bad for everybody. They lead to illegal activity, and when all is said and done, my suspicion is that people who prefer docked breeds will selectively breed bob-tailed dogs, which will make the enforcement of the law on tail docking extremely difficult.
	I have seen the campaigns showing dead puppies, and I think that they are revolting. One says:
	Robbed of their tails. Robbed of their lives.
	That campaigning is unhelpful. It is based on illegal docking, which will remain illegal whatever we choose to do today, and on spin rather than fact. It does not do the issue any favours.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is speaking with a great deal of knowledge and a lot of experience, and most eloquently. I share his view about the photographs. Most of them were of illegal tail dockings, yet they purported to show what was happening across the board legitimately and normally. Many people would have presumed that those dockings had been carried out by vets.

Bill Wiggin: I urge my hon. Friend not to be too modest with his praise for me; I am most grateful for it. What he says is rightand I have had some fairly unpleasant criticism from the Council of Docked Breeds, which actually agrees with me on this matter. The subject is emotive, and we should allow dog owners to make up their minds themselves.
	There is a temptation to vote in favour of new clause 8 because it contains an exemption for working dogs. The exemption is prudent and sensible, but I will be forced to vote against the measure because I prefer the status quo. I have changed my position slightly since the Committee stage. I have been persuaded by the volume of bureaucracy, paperwork and certificatesand sheer difficultythat the measure would introduce.
	Owners should decide which dogs need to be docked. There is a compelling argument for pre-prophylactic docking based on evidence that damage will be done later in life. The comments of the security services are also most helpful. As the Minister said, show standards are the area on which progress could be made. For example, a non-docked dog should be at no disadvantage compared with a docked dog unless the tail has a fault. There is an incentive for show dogs to be docked if there is a fault with the tail, so the anti-docking campaign should focus its attention on that.
	There will be an entirely free vote on both sides of the House. Paragraph 15 of the Bill's regulatory impact assessment, which was signed by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), states that the Government's preference is
	that there should continue to be freedom of choice.
	Reluctantly, I will not support new clause 8, on the basis that I do not like banning things, paperwork or bureaucracy. I do not like cosmetic docking either, but we should make the matter a free choice for all dog owners, rather than using the Bill to determine what should happen.

Shona McIsaac: I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate. I will focus on the reasons why I believe that the only workable and practical way forward is to have a complete prohibition on tail docking with no exemptions for so-called working dogs.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said earlier, it is important to understand the history of tail docking and the reason why it became a common practice for certain breeds in this country. He rightly said that a tax was levied on the owners of working dogs. Farmers, drovers and other owners of working dogs began to dock, or shorten, their dogs' tails so that they could avoid the tax. The tax was repealed in 1796, but people who were worried that it might be reintroduced continued the practice of tail docking. Prior to the tax, working dogs were not docked. The practice dated only from when the tax was brought in.
	It is important to appreciate what tail docking actually is. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons describes the practice as a mutilation, and defines a mutilation as
	all procedures carried out with or without instruments which involve interference with sensitive tissues or the bone structures of an animal and are carried out for non-therapeutic reasons.
	It is right and appropriate to describe docking as a mutilation.

Mark Pritchard: rose

Angela Browning: rose

Shona McIsaac: I am happy to take interventions, but I would appreciate it if I could make a wee bit of progress first.
	The process of docking involves cutting throughoften by tyingbones, cartilage, muscle and nerves. It is done without anaesthetic on puppies under a week old and no analgesic relief is given after the procedure has been carried out. There is no justification for allowing the practice to continue.
	People who support the exemptions for working dogs argue that because puppies are neonatal they do not feel any pain, but that is completely untrue. Scientific evidence demonstrates that the nervous system of neonatal puppies allows them to experience pain; they just experience it slightly more slowly than adult dogs. It would not be appropriate for hon. Members to argue that puppies do not feel pain, because they certainly do.

Angela Browning: I have been persuaded by the Minister on new clause 8. When considering the surgical procedure for tail docking, has the hon. Lady thought about other procedures in which the veterinary profession is involved? For example, I was present with a vet while a horse was being castrated and the procedure was pretty barbaric. Is she suggesting that there should be no more castration of stallions?

Shona McIsaac: I must admit that when I was preparing the notes for my speech, my mind had not actually wandered on to the subject of the castration of horses. The Bill allows such practices to continue. The practice would not be regarded as a mutilation under the veterinary profession's definition, even though the hon. Lady regards it as quite barbaric.

Lembit �pik: I was going to make a rather similar point to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning). The vets' definition of mutilation that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) cited mentioned an attack on sensitive tissues for non-therapeutic purposes. Neutering a dog would fulfil the definition because that is obviously done for non-therapeutic purposes. If she is using the definition as a justification for opposing tail docking, she must, logically speaking, either support an outright ban on the neutering of dogs, or explain why she has different definitions for the two mutilations.

Shona McIsaac: The definition of a mutilation is not mine. I cited it because it is the veterinary profession's description of the practice of tail docking. As I said earlier, neutering is not covered by the Bill, as we determined in Committee, so the procedure may continue after the Bill has been passed.

Lynne Jones: I share the distaste for docking and regard it as a mutilation. I had intended to vote for a complete ban until I had an encounter in the Chamber a few hours ago with a docked springer spaniel. When I commented to the dog handler that docking might not be permitted in the future, the handler told me that that beautiful dog had had a full tail, but the tail had had to be docked because while doing its work looking after us in the Chamber, it had undergone serious injury from knocking its tail against the edges of the wooden seats and the Table. Can my hon. Friend convince me that that is only an isolated case? Given the safeguards that the Government intend to put in place, I am inclined to vote for new clause 8, but I put on record the fact that I want to see what the regulations are, so if the matter comes back to the House, I might well change my mind again.

Shona McIsaac: As I continue with my arguments, I hope that my hon. Friend will find that there are compelling reasons why we should vote for a full ban. I will come on to the point about injuries later, so I hope that she will stay in the Chamber to listen to that part of my speech.

Richard Ottaway: The hon. Lady may not have had horse castration in mind when she came to the Chamber, but has she considered the parallels with human circumcision, which, as she will know, is discretionary? Has she considered the fact that if she is successful, animals will have more protection against mutilation than humans?

Shona McIsaac: I did think about the issue of circumcision, because I received what I can only describe as racist and abusive letters from people who wrote to me about my stance on tail docking, having assumed on the basis of my surname that I was Jewish. The hon. Gentleman cannot draw that analogy, because the Bill excludes humans. An amendment that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) tabled in Committee would have included humans, as well as all crustaceans.

Bill Wiggin: I was just sitting here quietly minding my own businessbut the hon. Lady's point about crustaceans and cephalopods is valid. If she thinks that pain is the key to her decision, those creatures should be covered by the Bill.

Shona McIsaac: I did have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about cephalopods, but I thought that including them in the Bill would be going too far. However, I do not want to go too far down that road, as we are talking about tail docking.
	We have heard about the position of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I want to put on the record the names of the organisations that are supporting a total ban on tail docking. First, we have the Anti-Docking Alliance; it might be said that one would expect that of it Then we have the Blue Cross, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the RSPCA, Vets Against Docking, and Wood Green animal shelters. That is a substantial list of people who have to care for animals, and about the welfare of animals, and feel that the time has come to end docking dogs' tails just in case of injury.

Martyn Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems a little strange to use the ACPO evidence, or so-called evidence, to support the amendment, given that the police could dock their dogs at the moment but are not doing so?

Shona McIsaac: Yes. The ACPO material is anecdotalit is not based on scientific fact and has not been peer reviewed. In fact, most people who want exemptions admit that the supporting evidence is anecdotal.
	I want to explain why new clause 8 will not work in practice. The exemption is for working dogs. Before Members vote, they should ask themselves this question: as tail docking is carried out on a neonatal puppy under a week old, how can one tell whether it will be suitable for training as a working dog? I would argue that one cannot tell with any certainty whether any dog will become a working dog. If one has a litter of eight springer spaniels, it is likely that the majority will not be working dogs but kept as pets.

Henry Bellingham: I should declare an interest. My family have kept springer and cocker spaniels over the years, some of which have had puppies. If one is selling a puppy for quite a lot of money, it will be bought at the higher rate only by someone who is going to use it as a working dog. If one breeds a dog to a very high standard, there is probably a 95 per cent. chance that the entire litter will go into a working role.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, but I still do not believe that it answers the question of how one can tell with certainty whether any puppy will be suitable for training as a working dog.
	Sweden has a ban on tail docking that it has not reversed since it was introduced. In fact, no country that has introduced such a ban has reversed it having monitored the effects. It has been argued that a study in Sweden demonstrated that injuries went up as a result, but that was not a scientific study. Again, it was anecdotaland it was a survey by a breeders' group that wanted the ban reversed. The scientific evidence shows that there are injuries to the tails of working dogs, but after any prohibition on tail docking the level of injuries experienced reaches that experienced in the dog population in general. Among any group of dogs, the probability of a non-working dog injuring its tail is similar to that of an undocked working dog doing so. Some Members are shaking their heads; clearly, they do not understand probability.
	My main worry about the exemption provision is that it asks vets to certify that a dog is likely to be a working dog. As I said, it is not possible to tell. I, and other members of the Standing Committee, received a letter from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the governing body of the veterinary profession, citing the three options mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister:
	the status quo . . . a ban on docking but with an exemption for certain working dogs; and an outright prohibition on docking otherwise than for the purpose of medical treatment.
	It says that it
	recommends the third option: a ban on the docking of dogs' tails except when the operation is carried out for therapeutic purposes.
	It goes on to say:
	We have particular concern with subsection (4) of the new clause. This provides for a veterinary surgeon to certify that a puppy is likely to be used as a working dog. In the College's view it would not be appropriate for a veterinary surgeon to offer such an opinion. Veterinary surgeons are trained to diagnose and treat animals, and their expertise does not extend to assessing the intentions of the current or a future owner of a newborn puppy. It is in any case not possible at that stage to judge whether a particular puppy in a litter will prove suitable for training as a working dog.
	That is the stated position of the veterinary profession in this country, and it renders the new clause unworkable. If we claim that the veterinary profession must certify, but it says that it is inappropriate for it to do that, that is a serious problem.

Anne Main: The hon. Lady is worried about tail docking not having any purpose because it falls within the remit of normal injuries. Has she considered dew claws, which are often a problem on working dogs and are sometimes removed for cosmetic reasons?

Shona McIsaac: Yes, but the debate is about tail docking. The hon. Lady did not serve on the Committee, and those who did realise that I have a propensity to talk at length on such subjects[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] Hon. Members agree with that. I am therefore trying to restrict myself to tail docking, much as I would like to discuss dew claws, too. I shall refrain, despite the hon. Lady's intervention.

Eric Martlew: Our objection to the new clause is that it will be abused. No dog nowadays should have its tail docked, because since 1993 it has been illegal for anyone but a vet to do that, and the veterinary associations have been against it. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the discussions on the Hunting Act 2004. My good and hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and I stood shoulder to shoulder on that but we probably provided too many exemptions, and people have abused the Act. Time and again, police forces tell us that they cannot police it. What chance do we have of policing the Under-Secretary's amendments?

Shona McIsaac: I agree. The exemptions would create a massive loophole, which the unscrupulous will abuse. The pain and suffering that the Bill is intended to prevent will thus be perpetuated. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said earlier that the number of tail dockings carried out in this country could not physically be done by the number of vets who are willing to undertake them. It is being done illegally, and that is a serious problem, which the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has identified. Given the nature of some of the people with whom we are dealing, they will exploit any loophole and thus perpetuate pain and suffering.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend cited the letter from the president of the RCVS, so it is only fair to say that my officials have worked closely with RCVS officials in drawing up the exemption and the regulation that would implement it. They accept that the way in which we are constructing the regulation would remove the problem that my hon. Friend envisages, because a vet would simply have to certify that the relevant paperwork was present and the type of dog was within the law.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention but I do not know when he last discussed the matter with the RCVS. It has changed its view, and that is important. Recentlyonly days agoits council took a vote to change its position to support an end to prophylactic docking and to say that it was time for a total ban. I received the letter that I read out only a couple of days ago. The position has changed, and I fear that my hon. Friend may be referring to the royal college's position before it changed its policy.
	My next point relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about illegality. Vets are not taught how to dock in college nowadays. The Vets Against Docking website reveals that the vast majority of vets refuse to do it and are against docking dogs' tails. The exemptions therefore cause a serious problem and place the veterinary profession in a difficult position.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way, but I am sure that she is conscious that many other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. Will she confirm that the RCVS will tell its members that they should do whatever the law states? They may have professional views, but they must follow the law as defined by Parliament.

Shona McIsaac: Of course the royal college will follow the law, but it has pointed out to me and other Members of Parliament that it has serious anxieties about the law as it stands. When the law was changed in 1993, vets believed that it would end cosmetic docking. It is exceptional for the royal college, which took a step back from the issue for many years and left the choice up to individual vets, to change its position and state that it is time to end prophylactic docking and that it does not believe that it is appropriate for the profession to certify which dog will become a working dog. It has also stated that one cannot tell whether a puppy will become a working dog.

Henry Bellingham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Shona McIsaac: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I know that other hon. Members want to speak[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] I could have made a much shorter speech, but I wanted to be generous and give way. I shall not do so again, so that I can conclude my speech and let others take part in the debate.
	Abuse is currently happening. Puppies die and are injured through illegal docking. I therefore believe that a complete ban is the only way to clamp down on illegal docking. The exemptions will create loopholes, which will be exploited and perpetuate the pain and suffering that the Bill is meant to prevent.
	I spoke to the RSPCA[Hon. Members: Oh.] Some Opposition Members groan when I mention the RSPCA. If they tempt me, I could mention many other organisations. However, last year the RSPCA received 205 complaints about docking involving 835 dogs. This is a serious concern, and the Bill is meant to be about the protection of all animals. Unless someone can stand up today and explain how they can tell with absolute certainty whether a two-day-old puppy is going to become a working dog, there can be no excuse for carrying out this mutilation just in case. The profession is against it, as are the majority of animal welfare organisations, and I urge all hon. Members to support the option for a total ban. We must not leave loopholes that can be exploited.

Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for the manner in which he has handled this controversial matter, both by enabling a decision to be taken on the Floor of the Houseas is rightand through his novel exercise in democracy in Committee when he cajoled from each member of it their view on the matter. On that occasion, not one Member wanted to maintain the status quo of allowing cosmetic docking to continue. The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) has now apparently decided that he does want it to continue, so I imagine that we will have a vote on that later. I confirm that the Liberal Democrats will have a free vote on this issue; I think that all three parties are in that position.
	There needs to be a good reason to mutilate an animal. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) spoke earlier about the neutering of animals, but neutering is carried out for a purpose, and that purpose is not achieved unless that procedure is carried out. That is not necessarily the case with tail docking, because there is doubt as to whether it is necessary. We need to concentrate on that key point.
	To be fair to the Minister and his colleagues, the new clause has been drafted quite tightlythat was his stated objective in Committeeand the number of loopholes has been reduced. The idea that it was possible to identify breeds that would never work has been dealt with, as has the idea that breeds could be docked allegedly for one purpose but then shown. The issue remains as to whether an assurance might be given that a dog would be used as a working dog when there was no intention to do so. Notwithstanding the purity of a vet's intentions in those circumstances, they might later be held to have been complicit in a dishonest act because they had given information that turned out to be inaccurate.

David Borrow: What would be the motivation for someone who breeds dogs to dock their tails deliberately if there was no intention to use them as working dogs, given that it would then be illegal to use them as show dogs?

Norman Baker: I agree that there would be less motivation. If they were working dogs under the provisions of new clause 8, there would be no problem. If, however, the intention was to show them, there would be no point in docking their tails. Some people might have domestic reasons for wanting to dock their dog's tail; they might wish to have such a dog in their house. There are circumstances in which it would be to someone's advantage to mislead a vet in that way, although I accept that they would be fewer and more constrained than they are at present.
	The issues are whether the mutilation of a dog at birth is justified, and, whether or not it is justified, whether the dog suffers as a consequence of the procedure. It is now for others to make their case, as I have had the opportunity to do so at some length in Committee. I would simply say that a dog is born with a tail, so presumably that tail has a purpose. If it did not, it would have been eliminated through genetic manipulation over many generations. Tails assist balance and agility, and they are used to communicate with other dogs. It is questionable, to say the least, whether it is advantageous to dogs to have them removed.
	As to whether puppies feel pain, to be fair, the science is not clear on that; there is no clear evidence in that regard as to the consequences of the mutilation. The RCVS has stated:
	Tail docking in dogs is an unacceptable procedure when carried out for non-therapeutic reasons.
	That is the firm view of the experts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), I place more emphasis on what they say than I do on the anecdotal evidence of the police or of others who use dogs in their working capacity.
	What are the downsides if tail docking is not performed on working dogs? It is up to those who advocate the mutilation of an animal to make the case that that mutilation is justified. It is not for those of us who believe that mutilation is wrong to make our case. An animal is born as it is born: a dog is born with a tail. Those who wish to remove their tails must justify that decision. I have not heard any such justification so far in the debateto be fair to the Minister, he tried to be relatively neutral in his introductionso I shall wait to hear from other hon. Members the justification that such actions are absolutely necessary.
	I am happy to accept that some breeds are prone to tail damage if they work in thick cover or confined spaces. I am also happy to accept that, in some circumstances, tail damage in later life can lead to a dog suffering more severe pain, and that a general anaesthetic would be necessary to remove the tail at that time. One could also argue that working dogs were more susceptible to such injury than pet dogs. However, the scale of the incidence of such injury has not been teased out, even by those in favour of tail docking. The 20 examples given by the chief constable mentioned earlier is not a huge number. In any case, a tailor part of a tail; let us not forget that optioncan be amputated under general anaesthetic later in a dog's life if necessary.

Evan Harris: As my hon. Friend is standing down from his Front-Bench position, may I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his work on animal welfare? I am pleased to be able to agree with him on this issue; I do not agree with him on everything. The key point is that the onus must be placed on those who wish tail docking to continue to demonstrate their case. The safest option, given the scientific doubt that exists, is to introduce a ban and see whether there is an increase in the number of reports of tail damage in working dogs as a result. We could then review the position in five years' time. However, the default position should be to go along with the experts' opinion, to avoid taking a disproportionate approach to the issue.

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, he has stolen my conclusion from me. It is for those who wish to mutilate dogs to prove their case. I do not believe that the case is proven, or that mutilation is necessary, and I shall therefore vote in support of the new clause and of the amendment to it that has been sensibly tabled by the Under-Secretary.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate and to be able to support my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in his rather uncomfortable position of voting against his own amendments. Like him, I want a ban on cosmetic docking, but with an exemption for working dogs. There are many different, deeply held views in the Chamber on this matter.
	I am relatively new to this issue, and I come to it with no preconceptions. I became involved in it when I was a member of the Select Committee that looked at the draft Animal Welfare Bill. I also had the opportunity to take part in the debate as a member of the Standing Committee. The report produced by the Select Committee was a good one; it was unanimous, and among its findings was the recommendation that
	tail docking in dogs should be banned for cosmetic reasons.
	It also commented that allowing an exemption for working dogs was difficult in view of the practicalities involved, but concluded that the best way forward was to introduce an exemption, provided that the procedure was carried out by a vet. The vet should take the necessary steps to establish that the dog was to be a working dog, and should maintain records and microchip the dog with details of who had done the docking. The vet should also give the owner a certificate showing why the dog had been docked. I think those are good recommendations from the Select Committee; I have not changed my view on them at all.

Nick Palmer: On that point, has my hon. Friend seen the letter from the RCVS? On whether a puppy is likely to be used as a working dog, it says:
	In the College's view it would not be appropriate for a veterinary surgeon to offer such an opinion. Veterinary surgeons are trained to diagnose and treat disease . . . and their expertise does not extend to assessing the intentions of the current or a future owner . . . . It is . . . not possible . . . to judge whether a particular puppy in a litter will prove suitable for training.

Paddy Tipping: Of course I have seen the RCVS letter and I have had discussions with the RCVS. I want to make the pointmy hon. Friend was not in the Chamberthat the vets who work for the RCVS will do whatever Parliament decides. It is up to Parliament to decide on this issue, not the vets. Vets have a long training, and if that is too difficult an issue to discuss with an owner in relation to their intentionthat is all vets are being asked to do and to certify best intentI think vets are putting themselves down fairly badly.
	I support the Select Committee report and I am delighted by the new clause, which takes all the points that the Select Committee has asked for and puts them down in detail. My hon. Friend the Minister has made the point that the strong aspect of the new clause is the unique proposal that will stop the showing of dogs that have been docked. That will stop the impetus towards docking dogs for cosmetic reasons.
	The new clause has been carefully crafted, and I support it. It will do the things that I want to be done. I accept that this is a difficult area, but the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen have used their best endeavoursthe new clause is perfectly clear. What is not clear is the scientific basis. Everyone who has spoken in the Chamber has acknowledged that. The only people to produce any reliable statistics are the police, and they have been accused of being anecdotal.
	It is interesting to note that the police, Customs and search and rescue organisations, as well as those connected with shooting, all agree that there is a case for an exemption for working dogs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) rightly said that this Chamber is searched each day by dogs that have been docked. It is important to see what evidence the police can produce. The Metropolitan police dog training school says very clearly that 10 dogs have had full amputations as a result of accidents at work.

David Borrow: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a difference between tail docking and full tail amputation, and that those dogs that have their tails docked as puppies retain most of their tail? The advantage they get from having a tail in terms of wagging and balance is also largely retained. Those dogs that injure themselves and have the whole tail docked lose the whole of that advantage and are in a much worse position.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who is a good friend of mine and normally has similar views to mine, dismissed the notion of amputation by saying that only 20 dogs are involved, but it is important to those 20 dogs, as it is for working dogs. The Bill is about animal welfare. I want animal welfare for all animals. I want dogs that go out and work to be protected. That is what the new clause will do.
	I want protection for working dogs and I want to listen to the voice of the rural community on this issue. I have met many dog owners who go out shooting whose dogs have been docked. Again, I have listened to the anecdotal evidence. I want to hear and respond to the voice of the organisations involvedthe police, the rescue services and the shooting sector.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the new clause and I hope very much that Parliament will reflect on it and vote for it tonight.

Peter Atkinson: I will be briefI know that many other hon. Members want to take part in this short debateand I start by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, which is relevant to the debate.
	The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) made an extremely good case for the exemption for gun dogs. I think he is playing it wise in deciding how to vote on this. Sadly, I cannot agree with him, as I shall oppose the new clause and the Minister's amendments, which he does not agree with, because I believe that we should retain the status quo.
	My particular reason for thinking that way is that I dislike bans. Parliament is increasingly getting into the habit of telling people what to do and not allowing individuals to make up their own mind on important issues. We did that with the Hunting Bill quite recently, and just the other day Parliament was telling pub owners, club owners and restaurateurs whether they would be allowed to have smokers or non-smokers in their establishments.
	Today, we are once again producing a ban. In relation to anything to do with animals, reason often seems to flee the Chamber. I wonder what some of the people from history who sat on these Benches and debated matters of huge importance would think about the House spending two hours talking about whether a third of a puppy's tail should be removed. Perhaps this shows that ours is becoming a very nannyish state.

Norman Baker: I hope that history will look on us and see that we have shown some interest in animals, which is a good thing for the House to do. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly proper, as he says, to consider bans a last resort, which is a view I share, but must he not balance the right of individuals to do what they wish with the consequence for the animals? If he believes that the consequence for the animals is harmless, fair enough, but he must weigh those two together.

Peter Atkinson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is that the evidence is not conclusive on either side, which is why we should leave this to individuals. It is also why I believe that the hunting ban is wrong. People should make their own mind up on these issues.
	Another reason for my voting against is that we are in danger of producing bad legislation. Goodness knows, the Hunting Bill was a bad enough muddle; this Bill will be a muddle even if it contains an exemption for gun dogs. I asked the Minister early in his speech what would happen if I acquired a dog with a docked tail, born after the legislation had come into force, and I could not produce any microchip evidence or a certificate from the vet. I could just say, Well, guv, an Irishman sold it to me at a fair. It might be a stray or I might have got it from a man in a pub.
	As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, it is easy for people to dock their own dogs. It is estimated that there are 1 million docked dogs in this country and very few vets that do it. Even today, there must be quite a number of illegally docked dogs. It will be easy to get round the legislation.

Nick Palmer: I admire the hon. Gentleman's consistency on the matter, but does he not agree, whichever side of the hunting debate we were on, that there is a lot of unhappiness about the grey areas and the attempts to get round that legislation? We should be deciding: are we to allow docking or not? The attempts at a fudge somewhere in between are unhelpful.

Peter Atkinson: The point I am getting at is that it becomes difficult to legislate precisely for all those issues. This one will be the same. I have explained to the House a simple get-out clause for someone who has a dog that has been illegally docked, and they are entitled to have it.
	Let me make it clear that I am not an advocate of cosmetic docking I have no particular liking for itbut the campaign should be directed once again at the breed societies and the show organisers, because if they take a stance against docking it will quickly die out without the requirement for an Act of Parliament.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend has hit on a point there. I have changed my mind, having listened to the debate. I was going to support the new clause, but I am now minded not to, because a better approach would be to allow the status quo but introduce a measure focusing on showing dogs. That would drive down the demand for cosmetic docking. It would be much more effective and would avoid some problems with exemptionsfor example, those raised by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

Peter Atkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that legislation is needed, but I believe that show organisers and breed societies should think about the practice of tail docking, knowing how unpopular it is with many people.

David Taylor: Could not breeding societies be encouraged to breed dogs with the aim of producing shorter tails? There is a good deal of evidence that that is possible, and it would deal with some of the problems in the medium term.

Peter Atkinson: I am no expert on the breeding of dogs, but if that is possible, it would certainly present a solution.
	Members have asked how it can be established whether a dog will become a working dog. The answer is that that cannot be established, but many people own working breeds such as spaniels which, even if they are not used for shooting or similar pursuits, may nevertheless injure their tails. Even if it is kept purely as a pet, a spaniel with a full tail is in danger of rushing into undergrowth and damaging its tail. It is illogical to suggest that one spaniel should have its tail docked because at some stage it may be used in field sports and another should not because it is simply a pet. The same applies to terriers, which may not be working dogs but may choose to run off and go down rabbit holes. It is when a terrier with a curly tail tries to back its way out of a rabbit hole that an injury may occur. The dog will often become stuck. The only way in which to get a terrier out of a hole may be to pull its tailnot its legs, which will break. That is one reason why terriers' tails are traditionally shortened.

Russell Brown: The House has discussed various types of working dog today, including hounds used in hunting. The most prolific working dog is undoubtedly the border collie used by shepherds. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why those two breeds do not have their tails docked?

Hon. Members: They do not go down holes.

Peter Atkinson: As my hon. Friends are saying, border collies do not tend to go down holes, and foxhounds are not in the habit of going into thick cover. That is what spaniels and terriers do.
	We are in danger of producing another complicated piece of animal legislation which will be difficult to enforce, will be widely abused, and will bring the House into disrepute.

Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Atkinson: I am about to end my speech, but I will give way.

Nicholas Soames: One of the depressing aspects of legislation of this kind is the House's inability to listen to the views of people outside who really know what they are talking about. Is that not a compelling reason to oppose the new clause, especially in the context of terriers?

Peter Atkinson: I entirely agree. It is dangerous to be blinkered when faced with these issues, but when it comes to animals some Members are utterly blinkered. They see no reason and no scope for a compromise. As I have said, that leads to bad legislationand ultimately, if the law is treated as an ass, the House will be brought into disrepute.

Martyn Jones: Originally, I was open-minded. I generally support shooting and field sports. Three or four weeks ago, when I first looked at the proposals, I thought that I would vote for the exemption for working dogs. However, I have the honour of being a member of the council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as a Privy Council appointee. I hasten to add that I am a lay member.
	I am vice-chairman of the college's external affairs committee. When, about three weeks ago, the Bill came before the committee, all the vets opposed tail docking. That influenced my thinking. The vets were minded to put their views to the next meeting of the full council on 2 March, less than two weeks ago. I encouraged them to do so, because I felt that, as the ruling body of veterinary surgeons, the college should have a view on tail docking but that the matter should be put to the full council. It did, and as the chairman was absent I put to the councilwithout leading its members in any waythat the House would need guidance from a body such as the college. I was amazed when not one vet spoke in favour of tail docking. They all opposed it, and produced cogent reasons for their opposition. That persuaded me to vote for a full ban, which I shall do tonight.
	Day in, day out, those vets on the council see dogs whose tails have been docked, and they know that they have not done the docking. Any exemption, whatever the wording in which it is couched, will muddy the legal waters and cause problems. The council's decision is now the policy of the college: its policy is not to allow tail docking. Unless we support it by voting for a ban, it will not be able to implement that policy.
	I think that the Association of Chief Police Officers was misled. I think that it believes therapeutic docking following tail damage will be stopped. If that is not the case, why have not all its dogs' tails been docked? That would be legal.

Shona McIsaac: Is my hon. Friend aware that most of the dogs used by the police are gifted to them? Their tails may have been docked at an earlier stage.

Martyn Jones: That is a point, but the fact remains that most of the dogs' tails have not been docked to avoid damage. By definition, the police are using dogs whose tails have not been docked. Occasionally some are damaged, but that happens to all dogs with tails. Vets treat them as damaged dogs, and continue to practise therapeutic docking. What they do not want to practise is prophylactic docking on the off chance that a dog might be working.

James Paice: Given my own view, I am rather sorry that the hon. Gentleman has reached this conclusion. He asked why the police did not automatically dock dogs' tails if they are in favour of that. There are two answers. First, the vast majority of police dogs do not engage in activity that makes damage likely. Secondly, a letter from Assistant Chief Constable Vaughan to DEFRA points out that nothing can be done about mature dogs that have been given to the police, and also states:
	Experience over many years of working with police dogs has shown us that certain dog types, performing certain roles, usually a search function . . . in difficult terrain and confined spaces are susceptible to causing injury in their tails. Any docking of new puppies is restricted to such dog types.
	Does that not clarify the position?

Martyn Jones: Not at all. I still cannot see the logic. That is the opinion of a particular police officer who has seen tail damage. I think he believes that the Bill will not allow therapeutic docking. Why else would he reach such a conclusion?

Ben Bradshaw: I have engaged in two lengthy conversations with Assistant Chief Constable Vaughan. He is under no illusion that the new clause would ban therapeutic docking; he is talking about prophylactic docking. [Interruption.]

Martyn Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) asks from a sedentary position why they do not use less vulnerable breeds. Why is this seen as evidence in favour of the exemption when, at the moment, those breeds are not used, for the very reasonable reason that it is not allowed or that those concerned get them too late to be docked? It is simply not an argument for the exemption that they are not using the exemption now.

Eric Martlew: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unlikely that the police would dock a five-day-old puppy that they were going to take later? The dogs would never be docked because they would later be doing police work.

Martyn Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes the point perfectly that that is not an argument in favour of the exemption.
	I accept the evidence of the vets; they work with animals every day, see dogs with docked tails and have great suspicion about where those dogs have been docked and by whom. The only way in which this abuse will be stopped is if we have a total ban on docking, which I urge the House to support.

Henry Bellingham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and it is sad that we are not on the same side tonight. We have often debated countryside, shooting and rural issues and we have been on the same side. It is a great pity that we will not be tonight.
	I have an interest to declare. I have owned dogs all my life. Since I was about 10, my family has had springers and cockers, and we have bred those dogs. It has always been accepted as a matter of fact that the working springers and cockers would have docked tails, for very good reasons. The dogs will go into thick undergrowth; they are natural hunters. I have seen docked springers and cockers coming out of thick undergrowth with blood and cuts on what is left of their tails. Those injuries heal quickly, but I have often wondered how much worse the injuries would have been if the dogs had not been docked at birth. I have always taken a great interest in this subject.
	I also own a slightly old labrador called Tiffany. When she was younger, she was an active dog and had a habit of being in a good mood most of the time. She wagged her tail against different objects, such as doors and chairs. Her tail was in such a bad state that we nearly had to have it removed, or therapeutically docked. I am talking about a labrador with a tough tail; one can immediately see the difference between that and a spaniel's tail.
	The difference was brought home to me when I thought about the dogs that are used by our security forces and by the police and which operate in confined spaces. If one comes in early to this place, one can see the dogs that work in this Chamber, the police sniffer dogs. They are in an extremely good mood and go careering round the Chamber, in a controlled fashion, in and out of tight spaces. If they had long tails, they would be banging them against every object in sight.

Nick Palmer: The hon. Gentleman and I share the pleasure of having a labrador. Would it not be logical to say that we should cut off the tails of all dogs, including labradors? Indeed, I notice that the hon. Gentleman, like me, uses his arm a good deal when he speaks. Should we not cut off his arm in case he injures it?

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman slightly devalues his argument with his rather flippant remark. My point is that a labrador has a different tail from that of springers, cockers and some of the sheepdog breeds.
	I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Clwyd, South had to say about vets. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, who commands a great deal of respect in this House and is a Privy Council nominee to the council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. In my constituency, the vets are divided on the issue. If one goes to a rural veterinary practice, one finds that vets are almost unanimously in favour of the status quo and of tail docking per se. In urban areas such as Norwich and King's Lynn, there are veterinary practices dominated by vets who are used to looking after smaller animals. They are not used to the countryside and have not spoken to the people there, who would be involved in countryside pursuits or farming. Those vets are mainly in favour of an outright ban.
	One has to look carefully at the conclusion reached by vets and ask whether the decision is the result of the domination of that council by predominantly urban vets. Has the voice of the countryside been heard? I put that point to the hon. Gentleman, who is very wise on these matters.

Martyn Jones: I was trying to work out the numbers while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, but at least four members of the council are rural vets and all were in favour of a ban. There may be anecdotal evidence, and I am sure some vets are in favour of docking, but 91 per cent. of vets are against it; that figure must include quite a lot of rural vets.

Henry Bellingham: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has said, which carries some weight, although I have discovered that my rural vets are in favour of the status quo.
	Much misinformation has been put out by the Anti-Docking Alliance, the League against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA. I intervened on the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), who went into this matter in great detail, and asked him about the e-mailed photographs that we have all received, some of which were quite disgraceful. They showed docked dogs with tails lying on the ground and older dogs that had been docked by amateurs. All those dockings would have been completely against the law. One must keep stressing the point that it has been illegal for the past 15 years or so for individual dog owners to dock a dog. It has to be done by a vet.
	The issue of pain was discussed at some length. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) made a long speech and, to be fair, took a lot of interventions. I do not know whether she has seen a puppy being docked.

Shona McIsaac: indicated assent.

Henry Bellingham: She has. I have seen puppies being docked by vets and I do not feel that there is any lasting pain. [Interruption.] One cannot be sure of that, but the puppies in question immediately went back in with the litter, showing no sign of distress whatever. These were puppies with their eyes shut. That procedure cannot be compared with the pain suffered as a result of therapeutic docking that might have to take place at a later stage. There is no comparison whatever.

Shona McIsaac: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that scientific evidence demonstrates that the neonatal puppy experiences the sensations of pain and, possibly, because of the nature of the neurological pathways, does so more intensely? People argue that because the puppies do not react, there is no pain, but there is very little a two-day old puppy can do apart from squeal. The puppies that I have seen docked certainly squealed when their tails were amputated. No one in this place, I hope, would argue that a neonatal puppy could have a paw or an ear cut off and not experience pain.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am not going to pursue this issue in detail, but the point is that I have seen puppies having their tails docked and although they may well suffer some temporary pain, they get over it very quickly indeed, settle back into the litter and show no signs of ongoing distress. They are not put off their food and they soon develop as normal, healthy dogs.
	I am in favour of the status quo. On entering into this debate, I probably erred toward voting for a partial ban and voting against cosmetic docking, but I have been impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper). It is already illegal for individual dog owners to dock their dogs. Dogs have to be docked by vets, so what we should have is proper enforcement of existing law. If the law was properly enforced, ifas my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham pointed out sensibly and with such imaginationpressure was put on the showing community to veer from cosmetic docking, and if the word went through the entire breeding community that kennel clubs and the various breeders do not approve of it, we would see a big reduction in cosmetic docking. I am also impressed by the arguments concerning bureaucracy, freedom of choice and the complications to which an outright ban would lead, which is why I am in favour of maintaining the status quo.
	I am sorry that the Minister has been put in thisposition. He gave various commitments to organisations such as the Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. He spoke to them at length and told them that he would do all that he possibly could to ensure an exemption for working dogs. I am very sad that he has been unable to deliver on that.

Ben Bradshaw: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have never given any assurances on anything to the Countryside Alliance.

Henry Bellingham: That is very interesting, because according to an article in The Times in 2004, the Minister had assured countryside rural sports organisations that there would be an exemption for working dogs. Whether such discussion included the Countryside Alliance, I do not know, but it certainly included a number of other organisations very close to it. It is a pity that the Minister, having said that he was standing up for the countryside and for freedom of choice in the countryside, has been unable to deliver.

David Borrow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Henry Bellingham: I am going to sit down in a moment. This is yet another example of this Government saying one thing to the countryside and doing something completely different. That is why I am minded to support the status quo.

Anne Snelgrove: As a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I want to thank the Minister for the way in which he conducted our debates, for taking the Committee's temperature and for allowing us a free vote.
	I want to begin by taking issue with what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said about past debates on animal welfare in this House. The first animal welfare Bill was debated and passed in 1911, and it is the sign of a civilised society when it debates, without mawkish sentimentality, the welfare of animals, whether they are pets or working animals. It is right that Members in all parts of the House find this issue important.
	I will be supporting the Minister's amendmentseven though he is unable to do somainly because of lobbying in my constituency. Stephen Smith, a local vet, wrote to me saying that tail docking
	is a procedure I have never elected to perform, on welfare grounds . . . it is not in the animal's best interests . . . puppies feel pain during the process of docking . . . the use of the tail to communicate is essential to a dog's well being . . . There is no scientific evidence to show that undocked working dogs damage their tails any more than undocked non-working dogs . . . If exemptions are introduced into the law there will always be an opportunity for exploitation of a loophole and inevitably the law will fail to protect the animals that it is intended to protect.
	Those are overwhelming reasons why we should vote for a total ban, with no exemptions.
	Vets throughout the country are making the same arguments as Stephen, saying that docking is not in the dog's interest. That has put some doubt in my mind about the crucial testwhether tail docking is a good thing. Surely it cannot be, given that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association have all long believed the practice to be unethical. As a result, it is no longer taught to veterinary students as part of their studies.
	The docking of animals' tails is not wrong if there is a scientific case for doing so; indeed, there is a strong case for the prophylactic docking of some animals. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsI am afraid that some Members seem to have little respect for the RSPCA, but I have a great deal of respect for itis not asking for a ban on the docking of lambs or piglets, subject, of course, to specific restrictions on the manner in which it is carried out. The National Farmers Union emphasises:
	What may be appropriate provision for companion animals is not necessarily appropriate for animals kept for commercial purposes as in farming.
	No one would suggest that farmed animals should not be protected by docking. Reference was made earlier to a sheepdog soiling itself, and it was argued that it would be better for such animals to have their tails docked at birth. Members should be aware that according to the RSPCA, proper and careful grooming of dogs is a far better approach than cutting off the tail to avoid the area underneath becoming soiled with faecal matter. In some cases, hygiene problems are increased by docking, as the procedure can damage the anal muscles. Therefore, we cannot extrapolate from one species to another, and the evidence is that what is appropriate for livestock is not right for dogs.
	In considering whether to dock the tail of a puppy or to leave it, the moral dilemma will always be weighing the potential pain from possible tail damage against the definite pain from what may turn out to be an unnecessary preventive measure. There is evidence of pain, but no evidence of benefit. I advanced this argument on Second Reading and in Committee, where I was pleased to table the amendment prohibiting docking, and I want to address it again. The House of Commons Library provided a journal article on the available research and, according to that, all the evidence reviewed thus far is consistent with the claim that docking causes acute pain to dogs. No evidence could be found to support the claim that new-born pups do not experience any pain at the time of docking. On the question of benefit, the article concludes:
	The absence of appropriate studies in this area represents a significant difficulty for those who support tail docking, even in those breeds that may be expected to sustain tail damage.

Nick Palmer: I was unable to read the full Committee proceedings, but am I right in believing that a substantial majority of Committee members favoured a total ban?

Anne Snelgrove: That is entirely correct. Those who reached a decision one way or anotherthat did not include the Conservativesindicated that they supported a total ban, which is why we are debating this issue today and having a free vote on it.
	An unscientific study by a Swedish German pointer breed society in 1989my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) mentioned it earliershowed that of the 191 dogs studied, amputations had to be conducted on only seven. Therefore, 97 per cent. of those dogs did not need to be docked. In the light of robust evidence from Denmark and Norway, even if the pro-dockers are right and there is a 20 per cent. increase in tail injuries following a docking ban, which is doubtful, tail injuries would rise from under 0.037 per cent. to 0.044 per cent., leaving some 99 per cent. of dogs with healthy, uninjured tails.

Russell Brown: A local vet in my constituency produced two letters, one dated 1991 and the other 1997, from the Swedish Boxer club, suggesting that for that breed injuries had increased from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., but the information is scant because it does not give the actual number of dogs involved. Does my hon. Friend have any more up-to-date information?

Anne Snelgrove: I have indications from vets in my constituency that the number of injuries to dogs whose tails were not docked following a ban would not exceed the number of injuries in dogs that are not docked at present. The number of injuries would remain almost the same and we would not see any huge increase. One in six dogs1 millionis docked. We do not have 1 million working dogs. Only a third are even working breeds. Thirty thousand dogs are docked a year, if the average dog lives for 10 years. [Interruption.] Docking is a very popular practice and we need to be realistic and accept that there would be abuses[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that we must not have casual conversations while the hon. Lady is addressing the House?

Anne Snelgrove: We are told that an exemption would mean that a vet would have to certify that the dog is likely to be a working dog, but the word likely is not a very high barrier to overcome. We already know that even a dog likely to be a working dog is unlikely to injure its tail.
	We are told that the exemption would also lead to a ban on showing dogs with docked tails, but as I have said, 1 million dogs are currently docked and not all of them are show dogs. People are docking dogs for cosmetic reasons, but not always to put them in a show.
	As a House we welcome the Animal Welfare Bill and the story of the improvements in animal welfare in this country. We have moved a long way away from cruelty. Cruelty has been excused by tradition, for cosmetic or entertainment reasons, or on the basis of anecdotal evidence. However, we have moved towards the treatment of animals based on the best scientific evidence and the highest standards possible. I doubt that allowing docking to continue would be in any way beneficial, and without full confidence in that, I have to vote for a complete ban.

Mark Harper: I had planned to vote for new clause 8, but having listened to the debate and to the Minister's promises of what he will do if clause 5 remains in the Bill, I shall vote against the new clause. I am not entirely comfortable with the definitions in the Bill of working dogs.
	For welfare reasons, we have to consider the likelihood of a dog having more damage to its tail in later life than it would if it were docked. That likelihood has to vary with the nature of the breed involved. That is why I am not comfortable with considering only what the dog may do for a living.We also need to consider what dogs that are not working dogs do in rural areas. If certain breeds of dog have a particular propensity to suffer damage to their tails, it does not matter whether they are working dogs or companion dogs. Dogs taken for walks in rural areas, such as the Forest of Dean, are likely to engage in the same activitiesgoing down holes, for exampleas working dogs. That would not be covered by an exemption for working dogs.
	A better approach would be to keep clause 5 in the Bill and have the Minister bring forward regulations to exempt tail docking. At the same time, we could consider how to drive down the demand for cosmetic docking by adopting the sensible provisions in new clause 8 about the showing of animals.

Patrick Cormack: Has my hon. Friend had a satisfactory assurance from the Minister in that regard?

Mark Harper: The Minister gave clear assurances to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). If the Minister has anything further to add to that, I am happy to give way to him.

Ben Bradshaw: I point out to the hon. Gentleman and others who have suggested that a possible solution may be to ban the showing of dogs with docked tails without banning the docking of tails, that that would be extremely difficult to achieve. Can he imagine the Kennel Club acceding to a situation in which docking was not banned, but showing docked dogs was banned? It simply would not work.

Mark Harper: I still think that exploring that route would be beneficial, instead of having a ban.
	When we were listening to the lengthy contribution from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), she referred on several occasions to the scientific evidence. It appeared that her definition of scientific evidence was the opinions that she agreed with, and anything else was purely anecdotal. One of the difficulties with the issue, which I have considered because of the interest expressed by my constituents, is that there is no clear evidence either way. It is certainly true, as the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) said, that many vets have opinions about the issue, but there is a lack of clear scientific evidence. There is anecdotal evidence from those who use working dogs and from what has happened in countries such as Sweden, which have a complete ban. That evidence appears to show that damage to dogs' tails has increased, and that has to be taken into consideration.
	This is a complex issue and the scientific arguments are not clear. It would be much more sensible to stick with clause 5 and consider ways to drive down demand for cosmetic docking, instead of adopting new clause 8.

David Drew: In the short time I have left, I shall try to be consistent. My hon. Friend the Minister has changed his position at least twice and the Opposition spokesperson has also changed position tonight. Thank goodness for the Liberal Democrats.

Ben Bradshaw: I have not changed my position once on this issue.

David Drew: At least the Liberal Democrats have been consistent, although the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has unfortunately got the chop.
	It is nonsense to pretend that we will go backwards if we retain the status quo, which has failed to deliver an end to the cosmetic docking of tails. The majority of vets want to see the end of the practice, but we have ended up with a lot of illegal tail docking
	It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 476, Noes 63.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time.
	Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause, (a), in line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (6).[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 278.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 9
	  
	Improvement Notices

'(1)   If an inspector is of the opinion that a person is failing to comply with section 8(1), he may serve on the person a notice which
	(a)   states that he is of that opinion,
	(b)   specifies the respects in which he considers the person is failing to comply with that provision,
	(c)   specifies the steps he considers need to be taken in order to comply with the provision,
	(d)   specifies a period for the taking of those steps, and
	(e)   explains the effect of subsections (2) and (3).
	(2)   Where a notice under subsection (1) (an improvement notice) is served, no proceedings for an offence under section 8(1) may be instituted before the end of the period specified for the purposes of subsection (1)(d) (the compliance period) in respect of
	(a)   the non-compliance which gave rise to the notice, or
	(b)   any continuation of that non-compliance.
	(3)   If the steps specified in an improvement notice are taken at any time before the end of the compliance period, no proceedings for an offence under section 8(1) may be instituted in respect of
	(a)   the non-compliance which gave rise to the notice, or
	(b)   any continuation of that non-compliance prior to the taking of the steps specified in the notice.
	(4)   An inspector may extend, or further extend, the compliance period specified in an improvement notice.'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to new clause 9, in line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
	New clause 3Improvement notices
	'(1)   Where an inspector considers that animals are being kept in a way which is likely to cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury he may serve a notice on the person appearing to be in charge of the animals requiring that person, within the period stated in that notice, to take action that the inspector considers to be reasonably necessary.
	(2)   An inspector serving a notice under subsection (1) shall give his reasons for requiring that action to be taken.
	(3)   It is an offence to fail to comply with an improvement notice.'.
	New clause 4Appeals against improvement notices
	'(1)   Any person who is aggrieved by an improvement notice served under section [Improvement notices] may appeal to a magistrates' court.
	(2)   The procedure on an appeal to a magistrates' court under subsection (1) shall be by way of complaint, and the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 shall apply to the proceedings.
	(3)   The period within which an appeal shall be brought shall be two weeks, or the period specified in the improvement notice, whichever ends the earlier.
	(4)   A court may suspend an improvement notice pending an appeal.'.
	New clause 5Powers of a court on appeal
	'On an appeal made under section [Appeals against improvement notices] against an improvement notice served under section [Improvement notices], the Court may either cancel or affirm the notice, and, if it affirms it, may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as the court may in the circumstance think fit.'.

Ben Bradshaw: This amendment to the Bill reflects[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now have to get on with the next new clause. Will Members who are leaving do so quietly and, if possible, not all together, so that we can get on with the business of the House?

Ben Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	This amendment to the Bill reflects my agreement in Committee to consider further a new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). His proposition was that those accused of an offence should be told in a statutory improvement notice how they were breaking the law and what they needed to do to avoid being taken to court. I have taken that on board and that is what the new clause achieves.
	Unlike the hon. Gentleman, however, we have not sought to replicate the approach taken in existing farm animal legislation, which makes it an offence not to comply with an improvement notice, but since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 may require an appeal processa point that he acknowledges with his new clause 4. However, we believe that appeals are impractical because the period of an improvement notice is frequently shortfor example, 24 hourswhen dealing with the provision of water and feed. Appeals are also resource-intensive, as prosecutors may have to go to magistrates once for the appeal hearing and again for the prosecution, and the appeal process is easily abused by those who deliberately want to be obstructive and frustrate the inspectors.
	Under new clause 9, we propose instead that someone who complies with an improvement notice will not be prosecuted. That is more straightforward, does not raise questions about appeals and is a clear incentive to someone to comply. Only inspectors, as defined in clause 46, will be able to issue those notices. I do not consider it appropriate that those who are not publicly accountable should be able to issue notices with formal legal authority.
	We do not agree with the Gentleman that an inspector should be obliged to issue a notice, although I note that he has proposed amendment (a) to new clause 9, which would do just that, but new clauses 3, 4, and 5, which he also tabled, would not do so. Compulsory notices would enable the serial offender to comply with each notice and then repeat the offence, safe in the knowledge that the worst that an inspector could do was issue another notice. In such circumstances, as in particularly serious cases that involve borderline cruelty, the inspector must be able to proceed directly to prosecution if he or she thinks that that is the best course, particularly if a disqualification order would be appropriate. In most cases, we would expect inspectors to issue a notice, but they should have the discretion to proceed directly to prosecution where that is warranted, particularly when private prosecutors are free to do so.
	Finally, new clause 9 relates only to alleged offences under clause 8the welfare offencebut new clause 3 would also include the power to issue notices for alleged cruelty violations under clause 4. I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that for most offences where actual cruelty has occurred, inspectors ought to proceed straight to prosecution, rather than issuing notices. On that basis, I commend new clause 9 and urge the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment (a) or new clauses 3, 4 or 5 to a vote.

Bill Wiggin: I have fought for the inclusion of the improvement notice in the Bill, and I am pleased that the Government have wrestled with the very difficult task of proposing such an amendment. New clause 9 will serve as a statutory provision that represents an intermediate step before prosecution and will operate as an independent measure that will help to improve animal welfare standards.
	The principle of issuing warningsor, in footballing terms, yellow cardswith a statutory requirement before pursuing prosecutions will not only save time and money, but help to focus resources elsewhere, on the most serious cruelty crimes. However, although I can see that the Minister's officials have done a good job in drafting the new clause, I am disappointed that it does not include a mandatory mechanism to ensure that suspected offenders are issued with an improvement notice before any prosecution can commence, and I have tabled a one-word amendment accordingly.
	The offences under clause 8, for which the improvement notice will apply, relate to the raft of codes of practice that the Minister plans to introduce under clause 12. Given that many owners may not have read a copy of the draft cat code and may not have read it carefully enough to know whether their cat happens to be too fat or too slim or is receiving sufficient mental stimulation, it is only right that we give them the opportunity to alter for the better the way that they care for their animals.
	The vast majority of animal owners would be prepared to do the right thing if they knew what it was. Of the 257 improvement notices issues in the RSPCA's eastern region, only 17 were ignored. Let us just think of the court time saved and how beneficial it would be to inspectors to be empowered in that sensible and practical way, which would improve animal welfare. It is those 17 people whom we are after. That is the path to cruelty, so they are the people whom we want to prosecute, and we want to do so in the spirit of the Bill, before their animals have suffered cruelty; we do not want to prosecute people who are willing to change.
	Furthermore, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which considered a draft version of the Animal Welfare Bill more than a year ago, recommended that provisions for improvement notices should be included in the Bill. So if we fail to amend the Bill to give law enforcers the power to issue improvement notices, we will open the floodgates to prosecution.
	The RSPCA has pointed out that some clarity on those notices would be helpful, and I am sure that there will be opportunities in another place to clarify how we deal with people who abuse this important merciful intervention. We can overcome the technical difficulties associated with people who hide behind the time frame, or who repeatedly fail for different reasons.
	We know that such orders work, so let us give them the full backing of Parliament by ensuring that they are issued on a mandatory basis before all prosecutions under clause 8(1). Amendment (a), which I tabled to new clause 9, would serve that purpose, as would new clauses 3, 4 and 5, which I also tabled. However, it was the Minister's wish that I should not press that amendment or those new clauses to a vote. I shall happily take his advice on the new clauses, but I intend to seek a vote on amendment (a), which would make Government new clause 9 mandatory.

Humfrey Malins: I wish to intervene briefly on this matter to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). Under Government new clause 9, as I understand it, the inspector may serve a notice, rather than having to serve one. That envisages the possibilityas my hon. Friend has confirmed, so I think that my understanding is rightthat certain people may be served with a notice and certain people may not be served with one. Those who are served with a notice have an opportunity to remedy the situation and thereby avoid prosecution. Those who are not served with such a notice have no such opportunity at all and can be prosecuted without having the benefit of a notice. I can see no reason whatever why there should not be a uniform approach, involving the need to serve a notice in every case. Otherwise certain persons will be disadvantaged and become defendants, when if they had had the privilege of being served with a notice, they would not necessarily have become defendants.
	No provision in the new clause governs the discretion in the service of the notice. We have no guidelines on when a notice may be served or when one may not be. I should like to know, for example, how the notice will be served. Will it be served personally or by post? I should like a little bit more information about the compliance time limits and, in particular, the provision whereby there may be a continuation of a period for the putative defendant to take such steps as are necessary, but I strongly support my hon. Friend. I hope that I have picked up the argument correctly when I say that in this case, it makes much more sense to use the word must. Otherwise there will be two classes of potential defendants.

Greg Knight: Is not the word may commonly used in such circumstances? Is it not a way of drafting designed to indicate that the inspector shall serve the notice? If we change the word may to must, how much further is my hon. Friend taking the argument? Is he suggesting that the inspector would commit an offence if he failed to serve the notice?

Humfrey Malins: My right hon. Friend, as always, makes an interesting point. Of course, an alternative for the word must, which my hon. Friend suggests in his amendment, could be the word shall. I accept the point that my hon. Friend is making, but there ought to be uniformity. It is silly to have one rule for one thing but a different rule for something else. Defendants would turn up in courtI am sorry to say, they may appear before me.

Bill Wiggin: They would be lucky to do so.

Humfrey Malins: It is kind of my hon. Friend to say so, but if a defendant said, I must tell you, your honour, that I received no such notice from the inspector, but a friend of mine down the road received a notice and could remedy the situation and was not prosecuted. I would have taken action if I had received such a notice. I would be bound to take that into account as a mitigating factor, and I would regard it as absurd that one person should have a notice served on him without any particular reason and another person did not. My hon. Friend's amendment is compelling, and would bring much more sense to the otherwise sensible clause.

David Drew: I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the provision. I was lucky to serve on the Standing Committee, where we were led to believe by the Minister that there were disadvantages in the process of serving a notice. The greatest disadvantage is one of time: some animal welfare issues may need to be dealt with immediately, but if a notice is served there are opportunities not just for delay but for someone to produce mitigating circumstances. The Bill is an animal welfare measure that presumes that we are thinking on the animals' behalf, so I would be grateful if my hon. Friend clarified whether the Government have moved towards accepting the Opposition's proposal of a yellow card as an alternative to peremptory action. Can he assure me that there would not be any delay? Our discussions in Committee suggested that urgent interventions could be necessary.

Bill Wiggin: We share common ground on the issue of cruelty and the need to tackle it urgently. The new clause, however, applies to the breach of the welfare offence, which is obviously a lesser offence. It is important to serve a statutory improvement notice, because we are not dealing with direct cruelty.

David Drew: I agree, but there are gradations. What appears to be a welfare offence to one person is straightforward cruelty to someone else. Often, such matters are eventually decided in court; that is my dilemma.

Bill Wiggin: If that is the hon. Gentleman's dilemma and he is worried that he cannot decide without the court's help whether something is cruel or a welfare offence, surely the right thing to do is to issue the written warning. If owners ignore them and persist in their behaviour, it is clear that their intention is to be cruel. If they react immediately to the improvement notice and improve the animals' welfare, everyone has won, including the animals, on whose welfare the hon. Gentleman places key importance.

David Drew: I largely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My only worry is that the treatment of an animal may not improve, leading to further delay. I would be grateful if the Minister assured me that the position will be clarified in regulations, as we need consistency. One inspector may issue a notice, and that is the end of their responsibility. Another inspector, however, may regard the same offence as a clear act of cruelty and take the animal into care, leading to a prosecution of the owner and so on. The Minister made a clear statement in Committee that that was not the Government's preferred approach, but if he can provide a good justification for the change I will happily go along with it.

Colin Breed: I thought that I understood the provision until I heard the last few exchanges. I, too, served on the Select Committee that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, and we discussed improvement notices at considerable length. That was a worthwhile discussion, which is reflected in the Government new clause. The word must suggests compulsion, but timing is an important issue too. There are sometimes conditions under which it is impossible for improvement to take place in a realistic time scale. Improvement notices, however, should be written in such a way that they are meaningful. People should try to write something to show how, step by step within a reasonable period, the animal's welfare can be addressed and hopefully it can recover. On some occasions, however, the abuse has gone so far that it would be difficult to codify a notice to deal with the problem. In those circumstances, the only logical thing to do is to proceed to prosecution, because an improvement notice would be meaningless.

Bill Wiggin: The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is valid if there were a prosecution for cruelty. If neglect has taken place for such a long time that there is no possibility of improving the animal's welfare, the animal has been treated cruelly. The purpose of my new clause is to tackle the welfare offence, which is partly dealt with by default in the code of conduct. Evidence suggests that when people are issued with an RSPCA improvement notice the vast majority want to comply with it. The problem is dealing with people's ignorance, and the new clause would help to address that.

Colin Breed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We may be talking about only one word, but that word is significant. We are all travelling in the same direction, as we want to try to ensure that the improvement notices are designed to address the problem. Sometimes, however, flexibility on the part of people who are judging the situation can provide a more just solution. We are therefore dependent on the issuing of the notice and on its terms. It is not sensible to adopt a prescriptive approach to the issuing of a notice, insisting on the terminology to be used and the issues to be addressed if the animal is in a dire situation. We must trust the people who will go out and investigate offences. If there is an obvious case of cruelty they will tackle it straight away. There are always borderline cases, however, and people will take a subjective view as to whether bad welfare extends into cruelty. The flexibility provided by the use of the word may offers that opportunity, so that is my preferred option.

Andrew Turner: I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). Surely, the problem is not poor welfare tipping over into cruelty but poor practice tipping over into poor welfare. For example, many of us believe that keeping two Alsatians in a flat is contrary to the animals' best interests, but does that constitute treatment that justifies the serving of a notice under new clause 9?

Ann Widdecombe: It depends on how much exercise they have.

Andrew Turner: Indeed, but does that allow them to exhibit, in the words of

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman able to bring his remarks to a close?

Andrew Turner: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, at that end of the spectrum, it would be better for the inspector to have discretion as to whether to serve the notice?

Colin Breed: Broadly, yes. The discretion should be with the officer who is confronted with each individual situation. In general, the desire of such inspectors is to issue an improvement notice when it is clear that matters can be resolved over time if the conditions in which the animal is kept are improved. Bearing in mind that inspectors will deal with a wide spectrum of cases, compulsion is not helpful to them in gaining people's trust and co-operation and working with them.

Bill Wiggin: If the inspector is of the opinion that a person is failing to comply with clause 8, that means that the inspector has had the opportunity to make a judgment. He must then issue the notice to improve. He does not have to issue such a notice if he believes cruelty is taking place. In that case, he must prosecute. He does not have to issue an improvement notice if he does not believe the person is in default of clause 8(1). The freedom of choice is available to the inspector. That may help the hon. Gentleman.

Colin Breed: I wish it did. We are considering a range of cases, and some are more subjective than others. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that giving reasonable latitude and discretion in the issuing of a notice would be a more sensible approach than compulsion.

Greg Knight: Should there not, though, be a provision to challenge the issuing of a notice? There may be a case where the inspector takes one view, and a vet who knows the animal takes another. Rather than subject the owner to the risk of costs being awarded against him if he goes to court, should there not be some provision through which to challenge the issuing of a notice?

Colin Breed: That would cause the situation to escalate even further. If it is possible to challenge whether the notice should have been issued in the first place, the situation becomes unnecessarily complicated. Do we not trust the judgment of those who go and inspect the situation on the ground, the circumstances of the animal and the circumstances of the person who is likely to be issued with the improvement notice or prosecuted? We know that some people are negligent, cruel or passively delinquent in the way they look after an animal. Introducing an element of compulsion will not necessarily serve justice or provide the flexibility and discretion that inspectors need. I therefore support the original wording may.

Bob Spink: I do not want to rain on anyone's parade. Broadly, clause 8 is a good clause and is improved by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). Subsection (2) highlights the fact that an animal's needs include the need for a suitable environment and a suitable diet. Subsection (4) exempts the humane destruction of the animal, but makes no comment about the transport of animals for eventual destructionfor instance, the transport of farm animals abroad to be destroyed in very unsuitable and distressing conditions, where their environment is certainly not conducive to their welfare and their diet is nil.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment under discussion.

Bob Spink: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister find a way to address that issue in the context of the clause?

Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend should be aware that the Bill does not apply to farm animals, which is perhaps why Madam Deputy Speaker called him to order.

Bob Spink: I take that advice.
	Clause 8(2)(c) calls for the animal
	to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns.
	Does that mean that an inspector could object to the extreme use of an electric shock collar on an animal and issue an improvement notice to prevent that? Is that clarified in the Bill?

Bill Wiggin: The extreme use of an electric shock collar would be deemed to be cruelty, in which case the inspector would proceed immediately to prosecution.

Bob Spink: Having received those clarifications, I am happy to draw my remarks to a close and hope that I can support the new clause with amendment (a).
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time.
	Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a) in line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.[Bill Wiggin.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 342.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	  
	Sale of Animals on the Internet

'(1)   Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament regulations making provision regarding the sale of animals on the Internet.
	(2)   The regulations shall, in particular, make provision with regard to persons who are involved in such sales but who are not themselves responsible for the animals concerned.
	(3)   For the purposes of subsection (2), the sale of an animal includes transferring, or agreeing to the transfer of, the ownership of the animal in consideration of entry by the transferee into another transaction.
	(4)   Regulations under this section
	(a)   shall be made by statutory instrument, and
	(b)   may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.[Mark Pritchard.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Mark Pritchard: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6Abandonment
	'(1)   A person commits an offence if he abandons an animal for which he is responsible.
	(2)   A person commits an offence if he leaves an animal for which he is responsible and, without reasonable excuse, fails to make adequate provision for its welfare.
	(3)   A person who assumes responsibility for the care of an abandoned animal may apply to a magistrates' court three months after an animal was abandoned and seek an order transferring legal ownership to him.'.
	New clause 10Circus animals
	'(1)   A person commits an offence if he uses or keeps in, or for the purposes of, a circus an animal not of a kind designated under subsection (2).
	(2)   The appropriate national authority may by regulations designate a kind of animal for the purposes of subsection (1) if that authority is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence, that the welfare needs of animals of that kind are likely generally to be met if they are used or kept for the purposes of a circus.
	(3)   It is unlawful to keep or use a winter holding quarters to which this Act applies except under the authority of a licence issued under this Act by the local authority for the area within which the whole or the major part of the winter holding quarters is situated.
	(4)   The appropriate national authority may by regulations make such provision for licensing in relation to the keeping or using of winter holding quarters as the authority thinks fit for the purpose of ensuring the welfare of animals to which subsection (2) applies and which are being used or kept in winter holding quarters.
	(5)   Without prejudice to the generality of the power under subsection (4), the appropriate national authority may by regulations apply in relation to such animals section 9A, 10, 11 and 12 of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (c. 37) (the 1981 Act) (inspection of zoos by local authorities) with such modifications as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.
	(6)   For the purpose of ensuring the welfare of animals to which subsection (1) applies and which have been used or kept in, or for the purposes of, a circus the appropriate national authority may by regulations apply in relation to such animals
	(a)   subsection (2) to (11) of section 16E of the 1981 Act (obligations of zoo operator on closure of zoo); and accordingly
	(b)   sections 16F (power of local authority to dispose of animals), 16G (powers of entry) and 19(3D) to (3F), (4) and (5) (offences and penalties) of the 1981 Act, with such modifications as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.
	(7)   In this section
	(a)   circus means a place where animals are kept or introduced wholly or mainly for the purpose of performing tricks or manoeuvres at that place;
	(b)   winter holding quarters means any establishment other than a circus where animals which are kept or used in, or for the purposes of, a circus are kept on more than seven days in any period of 12 consecutive months.'.
	Amendment No. 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 16, at end insert
	'(5)   For the purposes of this Act, in the event of a person unlawfully taking possession of an animal, he will be treated as being responsible for that animal on a temporary basis, until such time as that the animal is recovered by its lawful owner or taken into the care of an inspector.'.
	Amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 4, at end insert
	'(3A)   In this section, the term suffering includes both mental and physical suffering or cruelty.'.
	Amendment No. 107, in page 3, line 4, at end insert
	'(3A)   For the purposes of subsection (3)(c), the protection of property shall only be considered a legitimate purpose when animals are used by the police or armed forces in the carrying out of their duties.'.
	Amendment No. 108, in clause 9, page 5, line 14, at end insert
	'(7)   A person who takes part in an activity which could result in them receiving an animal as a prize shall have a duty to ensure that they make preparations to meet the need of the animal as set out in section 8(2) as soon as is practical after the receipt of the prize.'.
	Amendment No. 17, in clause 16, page 9, line 4, at end insert
	'(7A)   An inspector or constable acting under subsection (6) must seek the advice and certificate of a veterinary surgeon as soon as is practicable so to do.'.
	Government amendment No. 78
	Amendment No. 18, in clause 18, page 10, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert
	'(4)   A court may not make an order under subsection (1) unless it has given the owner of the animal an opportunity to be heard, and
	(a)   the prosecutor certifies that no prosecution is intended to be commenced, which certification shall be binding in respect of each animal the subject of the application, or
	(b)   it is satisfied to the criminal standard of proof that it is not reasonably practicable to communicate with the owner.'.
	Amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 30, leave out subsection (6) and insert
	'(6)   The appropriate national authority shall issue guidance about the exercise by a court of powers under subsection (1).
	(7)   In determining how to exercise its powers under this section, the court shall have primary regard to the welfare of the animal.'.
	Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 38, at end insert
	'(9)   The Legal Aid Act 1988 shall have effect in relation to an application under this section as if those proceedings had been included in the definition of criminal proceedings under the Access to Justice Act 1999.'.
	Amendment No. 21, in clause 22, page 11, line 41, at end insert
	'(1A)   For the purposes of subsection (1), an inspector shall only be able to require the licence holder to produce records relevant to the previous 12 months.'.
	Amendment No. 22, in clause 28, page 13, line 25, leave out 'this Act' and insert
	'sections 8, 10, 11 or 30(9)'.
	Amendment No. 23, in page 13, line 26, leave out 'three years' and insert 'twelve months'.
	Amendment No. 24, in clause 29, page 14, line 3, leave out from 'liable' to end of line 7 and insert
	'(a)   on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding 20,000, or to both;
	(b)   on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding 20,000, or to both.'.
	Amendment No. 26, in clause 30, page 15, line 5, at end insert
	'(4A)   A person appointed under subsection (4)(a) must be a veterinary surgeon or other person who the court is satisfied has the appropriate training and qualifications in, and experience of, animal welfare.'.
	Amendment No. 119, in page 15, line 22, at end insert
	',where it is appropriate so to do in the interests of the animal.'.
	Amendment No. 120, in clause 32, page 17, line 4, at end insert
	',where it is appropriate so to do in the interests of the animal.'.
	Amendment No. 121, in clause 33, page 17, line 26, at end insert
	'(c)   whether it is appropriate so to do in the interests of the animal.'.
	Amendment No. 133, in clause 42, page 22, line 15, at end insert
	'in accordance with its interests'
	Government amendment No. 61
	Amendment No. 109, in clause 57, page 30, line 19, at end insert
	'(3A)   Subsection (3) does not apply to a yard or garden where an animal is in the open and can clearly be seen from public land.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in schedule 3, page 42, line 25, at end add
	'Gambling Act 2005
	   15(1) In section 25 of the Gambling Act 2005 after subsection (3) insert
	(3A)   The Commission shall publish guidance under subsection (1) to the appropriate local authorities for the provision of the welfare of greyhounds, including
	(a)   independent veterinary attendance at race meetings,
	(b)   the provision of welfare protection for retiring greyhounds,
	(c)   the identification of greyhounds,
	(d)   the licensing of kennels, and
	(e)   track layout and condition..'.

Mark Pritchard: The new clause is intended to end the sale of endangered animals on the internet. It follows on from my ten-minute Bill, which was presented to the House on 31 January. Hon. Members will know that it is illegal to buy and sell endangered animals, but the fact is that that trade goes on every single day and is growing. It is increasingly being used by serious criminals to raise revenue for other activities that they are involved with.
	The new clause would introduce third party responsibility, not least in relation to those who are involved on the internet through internet service providers. ISPs increasingly say to us that the volume of traffic and chatter on the internet is too great. I was in my office in the House of Commons some weeks ago and went online. Hon. Members will be astonished to know that I could have purchased a leopard, an American bald eagle, an alligator, a chimpanzee, a dromedary camel and many other endangered animals.
	It is not good enough any more for internet service providers to say that they do not know what is going on through their infrastructure systems. As I said, they say that there is too much chatter and that the volume of traffic is too great to monitor such things. However, we know that internet service providers have been very successful in working with the police and law enforcement agencies to deal with child pornography through the work of the Internet Watch Foundation. I congratulate the Internet Watch Foundation on the good work that it does. If we can regulaterightly sochild pornography on the internet, which is clearly illegal, internet service providers could do more to stop the sale of endangered animals on the internet. Some of those animals may well be extinct in a decade. The Government and the House have a responsibility to play their part to ensure that that does not happen. Hon. Members may have seen the new BBC series, Planet Earth, featuring David Attenborough, at the weekend. There were some marvellous animals on display in that programme, including the mountain leopard.

Patrick Cormack: It was a snow leopard.

Mark Pritchard: It was, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In fact, the mountain leopard is also an endangered species. Whether we are talking about a snow leopard or a mountain leopard, the fact is that they are endangered and it is incumbent on us all, as Members of Parliament who value the natural environment, to use this opportunity to ensure that internet service providers do far more to protect them.

Norman Baker: I welcome the new clause and agree that the proposal is important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Home Office has shown that action can be taken on child pornography and that therefore the mechanism is already in place to achieve what he wants to achieve, which I support? Does he agree that the Home Office ought to do rather more than it is doing at present on the matter?

Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I would not wish to be adversarial today. I know that the Government wish to do all that they can through the Bill to safeguard the welfare of all animals. The relationship between the Opposition and the Government has been constructive throughout all the Bill's stages and I am sure that the Minister would wish that to continue todayspecifically in relation to my new clause, of course.
	The Government are considering filtering, monitoring and regulating violent pornography on the internet and the Home Office is holding discussions on the matter. I welcome the fact that filtering on the internet will be extended in that regard. Internet service providers need to be careful that they are not viewed as aiding and abetting an illegal trade that is growing and being used more and more by serious criminals. If ISPs can regulate political thought in China, given the amount of chatter and volume of traffic produced by a population of such a size, the very least that they can do is to filter and monitor, and to assist law enforcement agencies and wildlife crime officers in constabulariessuper-constabulariesthroughout the nation to try to track down people who peddle such an evil crime.
	Internet service providers have the opportunity to use animal welfare to give them a legitimate competitive advantage. They could differentiate their product by marketing themselves, as Marks and Spencer has successfully done in the past few weeks and months, as an animal welfare company. Given the choice, many of my constituents would prefer to give their business to an ISP that cares about the problem than to an ISP that does not give two hoots about the sale of endangered animals on the internetperhaps that is fitting because one can even get owls on the internet. Rather than ISPs saying that the requirement would be an affront to their business models or an assault on their bottom-line profit margins, they should see the situation in the round and realise that they could get a competitive advantage for their business.
	Of course, ISPs could take immediate action. I hope that the Government will support my new clause and move swiftly within the 12-month period set out in subsection (1) to get regulations in place. ISPs should make it clearer in their terms and conditions that those who sign up as customers should not partake in any illegal activity, including such sales. I am relaxed about the activity being specified and stipulated in the terms and conditions and set out as a distinct illegal activity.
	The reporting of illegal activity should be made much easier. If one sees any illegal activity on some ISPs, one must dig deep in the small print to find out how to report it. I asked ISPs several months ago how many staff responded to any illegal activity that is brought to their attention vis--vis the sale of endangered animals on the internet and how quickly they responded. I was horrified to hear that often only a handful of people filter through a lot of reports of all sorts of illegal activity late at night. I am afraid that the sale of endangered animals on the internet was pretty much at the bottom of the pile. With the Government's assistance, I hope that new clause 2 will ensure that the illegal activity is taken more seriously by ISPs and the Government.
	I hope that the Government's actions under subsection (1) will include a public awareness campaign. I have long called for a national animal welfare day, but we have not yet had a response from the Minister on that. I am happy for him to take all the credit and glory for the idealet us just have it. I was also hoping to hear about a legal helpdesk at DEFRA. Many people are not sure about what is and what is not illegal, and it would be helpful to have one desk officer who is an expert on the internet.
	As I said in the House some weeks ago when I introduced my ten-minute Bill, the Home Office should set targets for prosecutions of people who have been caught selling endangered animals on the internet. This Government are very keen on targets, and rightly so in many respects. It will horrify Members that last year there were only two successful prosecutions of people involved in this trade, and they were for dead endangered animals, not live ones. The trade in live endangered animals continues. We do not know where they have come from, whether they have been snatched from their mothers' arms, whether they have been transported in an animal welfare-friendly wayI doubt itor where they are going to reside, whether it be in a small box room at the back of some tower block or in a cage in somebody's cellar. However, we can interdict these evil crimes given the political will.
	If the Government are not prepared to support the new clause, that will make a mockery of the whole Bill, which would be a great shame given their commitments on this issue. We have waited a very long time for this Bill, which brings together many other pieces of legislation. We have not seen such a Bill for many decades, and we may not see another such for many decades. The Government say that they are the iPod generation, and that they are committed to information technology and the internet age. If so, this is a window of opportunity for them to show that they are committed in terms of animal welfare as well.
	There is dispute in the courts about the downloading of music on the internet, and I understand that the judge has demanded information about the people concerned. I will not mention the case for obvious reasons. The principle of the courts saying, We want ISPs to give us the information about alleged illegal activity has now been established. A similar legal wrangle is going on in the United States, where the authorities are asking for information from ISPs about people who have searched for particular words or phrasesterrorism, chemical attack, or whatever it might be. That battle is going on.
	I should like to make a prediction, although that is a dangerous thing for politicians to do. I predict that unless the Government catch up with the will of the people and with consumer discernment about differentiating which ISPs are animal-friendly and which are not, and unless they act swiftly, they will be left behind where the courts and consumers have led. That is not something that the Government would want to be seen to be neglecting, and I am therefore positive that the Minister will be supportive of the new clause.
	In conclusion, the objectives of the new clause are to ensure that Her Majesty's Government commit to a timetable, that ISPs take responsibility for aiding and abetting the growing crime, and that ending the sale of endangered animals on the internet has statutory force. The new clause provides a genuine opportunityit is now down to you, Minister.

Shona McIsaac: I want to speak to new clause 10, the subject of which is circus animals. We debated the matter on Second Reading and held a lengthy discussion on it in Committee, although most of the debate was probably simply my arguing the case against performing animals in circuses.
	I do not want to reiterate all the reasons that I gave in Committee for believing that animal welfare standards cannot be fulfilled in a travelling circus environment. The nature of the travelling gives cause for concern. Rules and regulations govern the transport of farm animals, but there are none for circus animals. Rules and regulations govern the size of battery hens' cages, and we will phase out battery production in this country, but no rules or regulations govern the size of circus animals' cages and beast wagons.
	In Committee, we had an interesting debate about definitions. We asked what sort of animals we would prohibit from travelling circuses: wild animals, non-domestic species, exotic species and so on. Although legal definitions exist, I believe that we got unnecessarily caught up in the definitions. I therefore tabled new clause 10, which develops the amendments that I tabled in Committee. Tabloid treatment of them would have been, the total ban. I am trying to be more sophisticated in new clause 10. Protecting the welfare of circus animals is the end that I seek. I do not mind what method is useda total ban or an amendment such as the new clauseas long as we achieve our end.
	I listened to the Under-Secretary's comments in Committee about not wanting to include bans on the face of the Bill, although we did that with tail docking. He likes to have the power to make regulations and the new clause gives him that power in respect of any animal in a circus environment. If, following expert advice, it was deemed that the welfare needs of an animal could not be met, the Under-Secretary would have the power to prohibit its being kept in a travelling circus.

Patrick Cormack: I presume that the Under-Secretary could also say that, if the conditions were right, the animal could continue in the circus.

Shona McIsaac: Yes, of course. The new clause provides for it to be demonstrated that the animal's welfare needs are fulfilled. I am trying to follow on from the Under-Secretary's comments in Committee. Speaking personally, I do not believe that the welfare needs can be fulfilled. Animal behavioural scientists do not believe that the welfare needs of those animals can be met. Organisations such as the Born Free Foundation, Animal Defenders International and the RSPCA feel that those welfare needs cannot be met. I appreciate that many of the hon. Members who are in the Chamber tonight will not have read the debate that we had in Committee, but I do not want to go over all those arguments again. However, there is strong evidence that those animals' welfare needs are not met in travelling circuses, which is why I have tabled the new clause.

Peter Luff: rose

Shona McIsaac: I have seen the amendment that the hon. Gentleman has tabled to the early-day motion. Perhaps that is what he wants to ask me about.

Peter Luff: I want to ask the hon. Lady a genuine question. I am seeking her view, not trying to make a point. The Kiley-Worthington report, commissioned by the RSPCA, substantially challenges the hon. Lady's view that it is impossible to meet animals' welfare needs in touring circuses. Why does the hon. Lady dismiss the conclusions of Dr. Marthe Kiley-Worthington?

Shona McIsaac: I have read a far larger body of evidence that challenges those findings. That was one particular examination; there are others.

Mark Pritchard: rose

Shona McIsaac: Given what happened in the debate on tail docking, I do not want to take up the House's time by allowing everyone to intervene on me. There are other important amendments to be debated tonight. I shall take just a few more interventions, then I must make some progress.

Mark Pritchard: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Lady's new clause. Will she join me in condemning those circus owners reported in the Sunday press who allegedly said that if the new clause were adopted, they would be prepared to shoot their animals? Does that not illustrate the kind of welfare standards under which those animals might be living?

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman tempts me on that. Yes, I did read those comments. They came from a circus that is opening a two-week run in Grimsbythe next constituency to minetonight, and that had a two-week run in my constituency about this time last year. I know from people who have visited that circus that the proprietor is telling audiences that if the Government introduce provisions such as those in my new clause, he will destroy his animals. He has been telling that to audiences that include children, in spite of the fact that the Born Free Foundation has sanctuaries for lions and tigers and has said that it could give them homes. That demonstrates that person's attitude towards the animals in his care.

Bob Spink: rose

Ann Widdecombe: rose

Shona McIsaac: I shall give way first to the hon. Gentleman, and then to the right hon. Lady.

Bob Spink: The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. Will she be generous enough to acknowledge that many circus proprietors do stable and transport their animals in a decent manner? Indeed, it would not be in their interests to do otherwise, because the animals would be unable to perform and entertain the many people, including children, that they do. I believe that 18 per cent. of people visited a circus in this country in 2000. Will the hon. Lady give the House a list of the animals that would be allowed or proscribed under subsection (2) of her new clause?

Shona McIsaac: I have tried not to be prescriptive in the new clause, because of the nature of our debate in Standing Committee, in which we got rather caught up with which species would be covered and which would not. I hope that we can acknowledge the advice of animal behavioural experts and other interested organisations

Bob Spink: Does the hon. Lady have some idea of what she is talking about? Give us some names.

Shona McIsaac: I am trying to be objective. I have my own view, and I do not believe that the welfare needs of animals are met by travelling circuses. That is a personal view, but I am trying

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Shona McIsaac: I am trying to answer the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). What I am trying to say is, Let's have it based on evidence. A circus owner would have to show that an animal's welfare needs were being met. I am confident, as are many organisations, that they will not be met. Therefore, the Secretary of State would have the power to prohibit those animals being kept in circuses.
	I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the statistics. The statistics that I have from my constituency show that 78 per cent. of people would ban all animals from travelling circuses and 16 per cent. would[Interruption.] Seventy-eight per cent. of my constituents who responded to me would ban all animals in travelling circuses. Of those, 16 per cent. would apply the ban to all wild animals. There is a lot of strong feeling on the issue.
	I apologise. I said that I would give way to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and I shall do so now.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene, and I wish to take her back to the argument she was making when I asked her to give way. She was dealing with circus owners who claim that they will shoot their animals if the proposal is carried. Will she reflect on the fact that we have perhaps heard all this before? Perhaps the House remembers that thousands of hounds were to be put down were we to put a ban on hunting.

Shona McIsaac: As ever, the right hon. Lady makes her point superbly and succinctly. I wish that I were as superb and succinct as she is on these issues.
	My new clause proposes to try to get some read-across between the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and circuses to ensure that the owners and proprietors of circuses cannot simply destroy the animals. If a zoo closes, the owner cannot inflict euthanasia on the animals. That is the law as it stands. If we applied the same standards to circuses, the circus owner who said that he would put down his animals would be breaking the law. Besides, these are valuable assets. Owners are far more likely to want to sell them, to be honest.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene; I have two reasons for doing so. First, she has repeated what she said before my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) intervened on her, which is that her new clause would give the Secretary of State power to designate those animals that may not be kept in circuses. In fact, it would do the opposite. It assumes that no animal may be kept in a circus, unless the Secretary of State designates it.
	That is an important distinction, which I hope the hon. Lady will not glide over, because her new clause would ban the keeping of poodles in a circus.

Shona McIsaac: No, it would not.

Andrew Turner: Yes, it would. It says:
	A person commits an offence if he uses or keeps in, or for the purposes of, a circus an animal not of a kind designated under subsection (2).
	That would be illegal until the Secretary of State had the evidence that it was not against the welfare interests of that animal. That might or might not be what the hon. Lady intends

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions must be brief. He might have an opportunity later in the debate to take that point further.

Shona McIsaac: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Subsection (2) says that there must be scientific evidence to show
	that the welfare needs of animals . . . are likely generally to be met.
	Poodles have been mentioned, which trivialises the issue. There are dogs that perform in circuses. Members of the Committee will recall that we touched on the subject at that stage. In some circuses that I know, dogs come in with the clowns and are in effect their pets. I do not seek to prohibit that, because there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the welfare needs of those animals will be met. The effect of the new clause will not be to ban all animals from being kept in circuses. [Hon. Members: It will.] That is not my interpretation.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady is misinterpreting her own new clause. The effect of subsection (1) is to ban the keeping of any animal in a circus. Subsection (2) will then take effect, permitting the Secretary of State to exempt certain animals. We are talking about a ban, which will affect a poodle as it will affect a leopard. Only at that point will we be in a position to present evidence that it is not against the welfare interests of the poodle to be banned.

Shona McIsaac: That is not how I interpret the new clause, or how the people with whom I have been working interpret it. The principles are what I consider important. I have been asked what species I think it would be inappropriate to keep in circuses. I certainly think that it would be inappropriate to keep big cats in circuses, and, as I said in Committee, I think it inappropriate that Ming, the ancient black bear, is kept in a circus. [Laughter.]

Bill Wiggin: He is not that ancient.

Shona McIsaac: Apparently Ming is led into the ring and forced to drink some milk as part of his performance. [Hon. Members: Her performance.] Her performance, then.
	Hon. Members have mentioned a circus elephant called Anne. Apparently the Great British circus, which is appearing in Grimsby, is importing an elephant from Germany for performances tonight. Another circus has been advertising for an alligator. I do not know how the welfare needs of an alligator can be met. If I were following that circus up the A1, I would keep well clear of any beast wagon. Those are the animals with which we are concerned. Talking of poodles detracts from the main concern of the vast majority of people in this country, which is the keeping of large cats, bears and elephants in travelling circuses.

Mark Pritchard: rose

Patrick Cormack: rose

Shona McIsaac: I said that I would be brief. I wanted to be brief when we discussed tail docking. I will give way a little more, but I want to end my speech shortly.

Mark Pritchard: I am intrigued by what the hon. Lady said aboutallegedlyan alligator going into the circus. I am led to believe that alligators are an endangered species. I should be grateful if, as a result of my intervention and the hon. Lady's comments, the Minister's officials investigated and spoke to the local constabulary. If it turns out that the alligator is to be in the circus, I trust that the necessary investigations will take place.

Shona McIsaac: I do not know whether the circus's advertisement was successful, but other advertisements have been placed asking for bottle-fed black bear cubs and the like. Circuses are trying to bring more animals in. I hope that people appreciate the essence of what I am trying to achieve.

Patrick Cormack: From what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), it would appear that the hon. Lady is inadvertently contributing to the passage of another law of unintended consequences. Would it not therefore be sensible for her to discuss what she really wants to achieve with someone in the other place, where there are plenty of very learned lawyers who could doubtless frame an amendment that would exactly meet her requirements? We would then be able to incorporate in the Bill a measure that would allow poodles and other animals to perform, while providing an opportunity for the hon. Lady's misgivings to be adequately addressed.

Shona McIsaac: I take that point. As I have said, I want a certain result; that certain animals are not kept in travelling circuses. I am happy to be guided as to how we get there; whether it is a simple one-line amendment or whether we give powers to the Secretary of State. Part of the reason for the amendment is to find out the Minister's stance, which will govern what I do. Having read recent press reports, I know that the Minister is sympathetic and is going in the same direction as me, although he may have a different way of achieving the result.
	I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to confirm anything at this stage, but my understanding is that he wants to bring in regulations that will prohibit certain animals from being kept in travelling circuses and that he does want to start regulating the winter quarters of travelling and static circuses.
	This is not quite a probing amendment but, as a result of the Minister's press statement, I wanted to put on the record tonight how we will achieve what I and many others want in terms of the keeping of large cats in travelling circuses. If the Minister is amenable to my suggestion, I will probably seek further clarification. If not, I would be inclined to push this to a vote. However, it depends on what my hon. Friend the Minister says.
	I know that many others want to speak on many other subjects and I feel that I have detained the House for far too long this evening[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] Some people are not terrible savvy; that tempts me to continue. I have taken the names of those who cheered there and I will not be quite so generous in giving way in future.
	I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to what we are proposing and that the Government can take forward what I, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and many others are trying to achieve. I hope that he will agree to that tonight.

James Paice: If the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) were to force a Division on the amendment, there would be a free vote for my colleagues and myself. Speaking for myself, I am not quite sure where she thought she was getting to. Towards the end of her speech, she said that all she was seeking was some indication from the Minister as to what he was going to do. We all got that last week in the newspapers.
	I made it clear in Committee that I do not particularly like the idea of wild animals in circuses, but I think that the matter is better dealt with by regulation, as it is conceivablebarely, in my viewthat it is possible to meet their welfare needs by some means. If a circus cannot meet the necessary codes of practice and regulations laid down by the Government to meet the welfare needs of the animals, so be it; it cannot keep them. If it can, whatever the expense and however grand or palatial the accommodation, that is all right.
	There is a risk that hon. Members are confusing the issue of the animal's welfare with the issue of whether or not it is right for an animal to perform for human entertainment. Those are two distinct debates

Shona McIsaac: rose

James Paice: I am sorry, but with respect the hon. Lady has had a good crack of the whip. [Interruption.] They are not all asleep, Madam Deputy Speaker. Despite the hon. Lady's best efforts, they are still awake.
	There is a free vote on this issue and I certainly would prefer that it be dealt with by regulation, but as I said, my personal view is that it is not right to keep wild animals in a travelling circus.
	New clause 2 was moved admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who reminded the House that he has already introduced a private Member's Bill on the selling of animals on the internet. He feels very strongly about this issue as, indeed, do I and other hon. Friends, which is why we have added our names to his new clause. I do not know what the Minister intends to say, but I point out that I and most of my colleagues strongly support my hon. Friend in his efforts.
	As we know, the internet has brought tremendous benefits to many, but it is also a means of dispersing information, products and goods that we perhaps do not want to be dispersed so easily. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) rightly intervened to point out that the Home Office has found a way of dealing with some aspects of paedophilia and child pornography on the internet, so it is only right that, if possible, the same methods be applied to the sale of animals. As my hon. Friend said, some species of animals are sensibly traded on the internet. The Farmers Guide website, for example, carries adverts for farm animals, which is perfectly logical, and one can look at them and then buy them. However, as he said, it is stretching the point when one can buy an animal such as a leopard, given that the seller does not know to whom they are selling the animal.
	Subject to the Minister's response, we may want to divide separately at a later stage on new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), which returns us to the issue of abandonment. We discussed it in Committee and the Minister was helpful, pointing out that the abandonment of an animal would be an offence under the Bill's cruelty or welfare provisions, which we wholly support. He made it clear that the act of abandoning an animal is still an offence under the Bill, but that no explicit provision has been made for it because the Government do not want to make the Bill any longer or more complex than is necessary. Of course, we have already done just that through earlier votes this evening, and I am not sure that such considerations should be the guiding factor in getting animal welfare provisions right, given that we seem to visit these issues only once every 100 years.
	Where somebody has abandoned an animal, it is uncertain whether that will trigger the cruelty offence or the welfare offence, which is why we still believe that abandonment should be treated as a separate offence. What could be more complex than not knowing whether the act of abandoning an animal constitutes a cruelty or a welfare offence? If we follow the Minister's argument to its logical conclusion, why did he need to include in the Bill separate offences of fighting, poisoning and mutilation, all of which could be covered under the cruelty or welfare provisions? In fact, he was right to include them as separate offences, and we believe that he should do the same with abandonment.
	If we follow the Minister's reasoning even further by having two abandonment offencesa cruelty offence and a welfare offenceand we apply the logic to the other offences dealt with independently in the Bill, his argument falls apart. For example, if the fighting offence was dealt with in the same way as abandonment, an owner whose animal is involved in a fight but escapes unharmed would be subject to prosecution and punishment under the welfare offence only. I doubt whether many in this House would find that acceptable. The Select Committee expressed the concern that such changes to the legislation would weaken the existing law on animal abandonment, under which a person found guilty of abandonment is deemed to have committed a cruelty offence. The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 shows that abandonment was deemed to be so serious an offence as to warrant a separate Act, so I find it difficult to understand why the Government now believe that it does not even deserve its own section in the Bill. I might also point out that the animal welfare legislation before the Scottish Parliament will retain abandonment as an offence in its own right.
	Amendment No. 2 covers responsibility for a stolen animal. The issue was discussed in Committee, but we did not feel that the Minister really addressed the issue of who would be responsible for the welfare of a stolen animal. He said that
	if someone were to take possession of an animal unlawfully, they would in most cases be considered to be responsible for it. They would, after all, almost certainly be 'in charge' of it on a temporary basis.[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 January 2006; c. 28.]
	No one would disagree with that, but it contains two important caveats in the words in most cases and almost certainly. In the cases not covered by most cases, who would be considered to be in charge of the animal? I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reconsider the issue in some depth and decide who would be in charge of a stolen animal in such circumstances. It is, after all, conceivable that someone who has stolen an animal may treat it improperly and be liable to prosecution, but we need to know who that would be.
	Amendment No. 3 relates to mental and physical suffering. The Minister has recognised the point and will no doubt speak to his own amendment in a minute, but I welcome the Government's agreement to introduce that concept into the Bill.
	Amendment No. 107 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. I understand and sympathise with his objectives, but the drafting of clause 4(3)(c)(ii) is broad on the protection of property. I am not sure that I would go as far as he wishes and narrow it solely to the police and armed forces, because we have a huge private security industry. However, I hope that the Minister will consider narrowing the scope of that provision in the other place.
	Amendment No. 17 covers similar ground to amendment No. 78. We welcome amendment No. 78 because the Government have basically accepted the arguments made in Committee. Clause 16 contains no requirement for an inspector or constable who acts without the approval of a veterinary surgeon to seek any further advice or to obtain confirmation that the right action was taken. Amendment No. 17 seeks to close that loophole and would guarantee that animals in distress would be treated according to expert advice. It would not remove the right or ability of an inspector or constable to act quickly, but it would ensure that they had to seek the advice and certificate of a veterinary surgeon as soon as practicable after the event.
	Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 cover substantial issues to do with offences and we may wish to divide the House on them as they fall to be considered. If an offence has not been committed or a person has not been criminally negligent, but they are no longer able to look after their animals, it would be right to take the animals away and give them a proper home where their needs could be met. Under clause 18 as drafted, it appears possible that someone could have their animal taken away from them even when they have not committed an offence or been unintentionally negligent. Amendment No. 18 would provide a resolution to that problem. It supports the principle of taking all steps possible to communicate with the owner of an animal to obtain their views on its future. That principle has been accepted by the Minister and is reflected in Government amendment No. 78, but we ask him to consider amendment No. 18 as well.
	The amendments also deal with an important matter that might place prosecutors in breach of the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to retain exhibits in connection with a prosecution. If a prosecution is mounted some time after a seizure, the animal that is the focus of the case may have been destroyed or disposed of. The Attorney-General's code of practice for investigators, which applies to anyone carrying out an investigation, sets out a duty to seize and retain all relevant exhibits that are the subject of an investigation for use in court, or for examination by the defence; failure to do so can result in the proceedings being dismissed.
	As drafted, clause 18 could allow the destruction or disposal of an exhibit before the person who is to become a defendant has the chance to have the exhibit examined by his own experts. At the time that such an application is made, he will not know that there is a need for such an examination and might not object to disposal. Without the change proposed in the amendment, we suspect that clause 18 may be challenged under articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights.
	By inserting a new subsection, amendment No. 20 would provide that a financially constrained person who is unable to afford legal representation may have the benefit of a representation order.
	Amendment No. 21 is designed simply to reduce the excessive bureaucratic burden that we all seek to lift from small businesses. Under clause 28, persons can be prosecuted for offences dating back three years. We have pressed the Minister on why three years was chosen. Such a provision could well mean that businesses have to keep records for three years. There are some 10,000 pet shops, kennels, catteries and grooming salons in England and Wales, many of them micro-businesses with only one or two employees, and requiring them to keep all that extra information for three years would impose an immense burden of red tape. We have rehearsed the arguments before, but I hope that the Minister has now had a chance to consider the matter further.
	Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are important amendments that would introduce an element of common sense in the prosecution of offenders who are suspected of committing offences under the Bill. The three-year period in which prosecutions under the welfare offence can be pursued is, we believe, too long. It demonstrates a lack of urgency and may throw up some practical problems. To take an extreme example, hamsters live for only two years, yet the Bill suggests that it might be possible to bring a prosecution three years after the offence. There are clear logistical problems. Clause 28 could require an animalor, even worse, a dead animalto be kept in custody for up to three years. We have raised the matter with the Minister, and rather than go through all the arguments again I shall merely express the hope that he will look favourably on our amendments.
	Amendment No. 24 would have the same effect on the time limit, reducing the time limit for prosecutions under the welfare offence to a more practical 12 months.
	Clause 29 provides what we consider to be unacceptably soft prison sentences for the worst crimes. When I raised the matter on Second Reading, the Secretary of State replied:
	If the House feels that a change should be made, no doubt that can be considered.[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 169.]
	I hope that her comments were sincereI am sure that they werebecause I believe that we need to reconsider the issue. The proposed maximum sentence is 51 weeks, which early release schemes could halve. We do not believe that such a maximum sentence will always be sufficient.
	We know that the Government are anxious to avoid the overcrowding that is now occurring in our prisons. They are encouraging the judiciary to reduce the period in custody and to use other forms of sentence. Again and again, we see sentencing policy being driven by the needs of the prison system rather than by the offence. We believe that to be wrong. It seems odd to have a situation where a pensioner refusing to pay his council tax could be imprisoned for longer than somebody guilty of an offence under this legislation. That is incorrect and the amendments address that issue.
	Amendment No. 26 ensures that anybody appointed by the court to deal with the disposal of an animal where the court has decided to deprive the owner of it is a veterinary surgeon or otherwise has the appropriate training and qualifications. It may be self-evident that that should be necessary, but it should be in the Bill. There are many amendments and new clauses in the group and they are all worth while. I hope that the Minister will respond to them constructively.

David Drew: The hour is getting late, so I shall be brief. I shall speak to new clause 10, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), and make a couple of observations about other amendments in this group. I commend the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on persevering with his important proposal, of which I am proud to be a sponsor. I wish him well. It may not advance at this stage, but it should do so in another place. I hope that the Government are taking careful note and will do something about it.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) raised many issues, but he is on to something with abandonment. We discussed that subject at length in Committee. The Government need to be clearer about what they will do about people who neglect their animals. The only thing that worries me is what is meant by abandonment. If one tries to bear down on people, they can get rid of their responsibilities by dumping the animal somewhere else. That form of extreme abandonment needs to be dealt with and prevented.
	I am happy to put my name to new clause 10, but I wish to query a very helpful and responsive statement by my hon. Friend the Minister on 8 March. It might be called half a loaf: we did not get everything we wanted, but we got half of it. It is worth supporting. I hope that if and when the Minister is able to say a few things in response to my questions I will feel satisfied. People who have campaigned for a generation on this issue, whether Animal Defenders International or, more particularly, the Born Free Foundation, which feels passionately that it is wrong to have animals in circuses, certainly those that we used to call wild animals, will feel some vindication.
	The interchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who is no longer in the Chamber, was interesting. It clarified part of the problem, which is that if legislation lists what should be banned, those who wish to have rare species in their circuses can go for something even more exotic. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman alluded needs to be thought about very carefully. We should state what we will allowif, indeed, we allow anythingrather than what we will not allow. That is simpler, even though it is more restrictive.
	I largely welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister intends to clarify in secondary legislation what will be allowed, but I am somewhat concerned by the use in his statement of 8 March of the words certain non- domesticated species. We would not expect a long list in a statement and we do not need one in this debate, but those words are fairly imprecise. I take it that the statement represents the Government's position, so once the principle has been established, it behoves my hon. Friend to clarify exactly which types of animal are inappropriate.
	The list does not need to be exclusive, but how will the process be developed? It is good to hear that secondary legislation will be used, but what is the time scale for that? What are the possible repercussions of secondary legislation? As we know, someone from the circus fraternity has already said that he will take drastic action if the measure comes to pass. Would such animals be put into sanctuaries, or will someone else take them on? They might go to a permanent circus or a zoo. Will my hon. Friend clarify those issues?
	My hon. Friend has given us half a loaf. Perhaps he could put some butter and jam on it, by giving us provisions that are long overdue. As Members on both sides of the House said, such a change is the essence of the Bill.

Peter Luff: We are actually talking about only one circus that uses wild animalsthe Great British Circus. The hon. Gentleman said that if the circus had to get rid of its animals they could go to a permanently sited circus, so I understood that his attack was on the use of such animals in travelling circuses. However, although new clause 10 refers to winter quarters, it would apply to the use of animals in all circuses, not just static ones. I am confused about the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's new clause.

David Drew: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I was not talking about new clause 10; I was trying to tease out from the Minister what his statement of 8 March would mean. I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes, but if my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that something really can be achieved through secondary legislation, I should be willing to withdraw new clause 10. Perhaps the measure could be made more robust in another place. I am reasonably happy that we have made progress, but I should like some clarification from my hon. Friend.

Norman Baker: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I assure him that I have not been given the chop, as he suggested earlier, but have resisted the temptation to carry on in my present post. I am merely withdrawing from it for the time being. I am happy to give him that reassurance and correct his statement.
	New clause 2 has much to commend it. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has highlighted an important issue which has not been properly dealt with in the Bill. More and more speciesoften endangered or exotic speciesare being traded on the internet as pets, which is hardly a suitable medium to sell such animals. There is no guarantee that they will be properly looked after during transportation, or, if they are still alive when they arrive, that the people buying them will know anything about how to care for them. Of course, many of those animals are listed in CITESthe convention on international trade in endangered speciesand should not be traded at all. So this is an important issue.
	As I said in an intervention, the Home Office has done some good work on countering child pornography, so the systems are in place in the Home Office to deal with such matters, and I hope that they will be taken more seriously than they have been so far. As the hon. Member for The Wrekin is my brother's MP, I shall pass on the news that he is doing something useful in the House when I next speak to my brother.
	New clause 6, on abandoned animals, is also something for which I have considerable sympathy, and if it were pressed to a vote, my colleagues and I would support it.
	We heard a very long presentation about new clause 10, on circus animals, from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and a long discussion of it, too, all of which was slightly academic because we heard from the Minister last week that he intended to take some action on the matter. I very much welcome the statement that he made last week. We need to get to the stage, with which many people are comfortable, whereby dogs, horses and certain other animals can carry on in circuses and animals with much more complex needslions and tigers, and so ondo not end up in circuses any more. That is where the centre of gravity lies in the House, and the Minister seems to be getting there, so let us allow him to do so.
	Incidentally, some of the animals shot by circus owners are doubtless endangered species, such as tigers, so I ask the Minister to investigate whether it is legal for circus owners to shoot endangered species if they no longer require them in their circuses.
	The hon. Lady referred to Ming. Ming has clearly had a very bad deal. Ming deserves full respect and support from hon. Members, and I am sure that that will happen if the Minister's actions are forthcoming. Ming needs to achieve full potential, and I am sure that that will be achieved if we end up with the Minister's proposals.
	I want to refer briefly to amendments Nos. 107, 108 and 109, which I tabled. I hope that, if the Minister has a chance, he will respond to them, because they deal with matters of concern. I particularly want to refer to amendment No. 107, to which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) also referred. As the Minister knows, I have supported the Bill throughout, as have my Liberal Democrat colleagues. The thrust of clause 4, on unnecessary suffering, is the right way forward, but he will be aware that it uses the word property, which is of great concern to me, as it seems to provide the opportunity for a large loopholea significant exemption from the provision on unnecessary suffering in that clause.
	When I raised the issue in Committee, the Minister mentioned that, for example, the police or the armed forces may need to use animals to defend property. I accepted that there might be occasions when it is necessary to use animals in those circumstances. However, in return, I asked the Minister to accept that, by including the word property without qualification, we could end up with the opportunity for a defence against the charge of causing unnecessary suffering being made to stick because property has been defended. The Minister has not qualified that word in any way, and I am very concerned that the use of the word property significantly weakens the clause on unnecessary suffering and provides a get-out for those who want to use that as an excuse. I tell the Minister quite seriously that he needs to do something about that, so I encourage him to respond to amendment No. 107 in particular, and I look forward to his comments on that matter. If he does not accept amendment No. 107, I hope that he will undertake to consider something similar in another place, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire suggested.
	Amendment No. 108 also picks up points, to which the Minister responded in Committee, about people receiving animals as prizes. He will remember our discussion about ponies being won at gymkhanas and so on. My amendment recognises that individuals win prizes in such circumstances, but it imposes a duty on entrants, requiring them to be prepared to meet the animal's needs if they are successful in the draw. That would allow ponies to be raffled, but it puts the onus on the person winning the prize.
	Finally, amendment No. 109 deals with a concern that I raised in Committee. The Minister will remember our discussions of the words yard and garden. I expressed concern about the fact that there is a big difference between a yard in which an animal can be seenpeople may have a genuine desire to intervene if they see that the animal is subject to unacceptable treatmentand a private area such as a garage. The Minister said that a yard could be enclosed, and asked whether we would like someone climbing over our back fence to deal with a problem.
	Amendment No. 109 deals with his objection by defining a yard more closely. It says that the provision would not apply
	to a yard or garden where an animal is in the open and can clearly be seen from public land.
	That answers the point that the Minister made in Committee, so the example that he gave of an enclosed garden would no longer be a problem. The amendment is constructive and tries to meet his concerns while retaining my point about the area being seen from public land. If there is a vote on new clauses 2 and 6, or new clause 10, I shall recommend to my colleagues that we support those provisions. I shall be grateful if the Minister responds to amendment No. 107 when he has the opportunity.

Peter Luff: I half expected the Minister to have caught your eye by now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as he might have things to say about new clause 10 that will help the House considerably.
	I shall speak mainly to new clause 10, and I share the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about the use of wild animals in circuses, but emphatically not domestic animals. He struck the right balance and correctly identified the centre of gravity. I have taken an interest in circuses for some time, largely because I was at school with Billy Smart's grandson. I remember the great days of the big animal circuses such as Bertram Mills at Olympia. During the interval, a cage was erected and the lions and tigers were brought in. That has all gone. There is only one circus left in the UK with a significant number of wild animalsthe Great British Circusand two more circuses have one or two animals, whose life expectancy is limited. The measure is therefore a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
	Circus people are not properly understood, which is a tragedy. We belong to the nation that invented the circus, which was created across the road, on the site of St. Thomas' hospital, yet every other nation celebrates it much more than we do. It is a glorious unsubsidised art form that brings the performing arts to societies and communities that would not otherwise see them. It introduces hundreds of thousands of children every year to the glories of performance. The circus is already under threat from the Licensing Act 2003, but I have received helpful signals from the Government that they may look at ways of reducing the burdens of bureaucracy, cost and inflexibility that it has imposed. If new clause 10 were accepted, resulting in the loss of both domestic and wild animals from the performing routine of the circus, it would be a devastating blow to the appeal of circuses to the UK market.

Mark Pritchard: Would my hon. Friend clarify the point that he is making and say whether there are any circumstances in which circus animals should not be kept?

Peter Luff: I do not want to get into a big debate about the evidence for and against the welfare benefits for animals of appearing in circuses. There is a great deal of academic research that shows that many animals benefit from the learning experience in the circus. As long as their transport and housing conditions are good, there is no problem at all.

Mark Pritchard: indicated dissent.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend may shake his head in disbelief, but that is the scientific evidence.
	I want to put on record my concern about the nature of the campaign fought by Animal Defenders International. They produced opinion poll research which appeared to show very large majorities against the use of animals in circuses. In fact, MORI has now admitted to the circus industry that the poll should never have been published, because of the prejudicial way in which the questions were ordered and the nature of those questions. A new poll conducted by MORI for the circus industry shows that over 60 per cent. of people have no objection specifically to the use of horses in circuses. Public opinion, honestly sought, does not want a ban.
	I know that much has been said about the inimical conditions of circuses for animals when they are being toured. I do not agree. Last summer I made it my business to go and see two circuses which tour horsesGifford's circus and Zippo's circusand I saw for myself the excellent conditions in which they are kept. It is worth quoting a description of the transportation conditions for a typical circus in the UK. Martin Burton states in a letter to the Minister:
	Since many of the discussions focused on transporting animals I would like to address this specifically. The practice at my circus is that after their last performance the 7 horses and ponies are loaded into their horse transporter and driven to the next venue. Since my circus travels mainly within the M25 these journeys are between 5 miles and 25 miles long and it is rare for journey times to be longer than one hour. The stables are then immediately erected at the new venue, in an area which has already been marked out for them. Erecting the stables takes less than an hour. The horses are then unloaded and stabled on clean bedding with fresh water and best quality hay. So the average journey time takes one hour, and the time the horses wait in the horse transporter while the stables are built up is less than one hour. The whole process is over in less than 2 hours. These moves happen once a week, or sometimes once a fortnight.
	The stalls themselves are large loose boxes
	I have seen them and I can confirm that
	which were designed in consultation with Born Free. Each horse has an individual loose box which is EXACTLY the same as found in many riding schools and racing stables. The stable is a purpose built tent which is warm and dry. In cold weather the horses are rugged up for extra warmth but since the circus does not operate in the winter extreme cold is not an issue.
	So circuses have pretty humane conditions for the domestic animals that they tour.
	The circus industry has no problem with regulation and welcomes the constructive discussions that it has been having with the Minister's Department about a new regulation. Circuses have concerns about the inadequacy of the current regulatory regime that they face, which is little more than a rubber-stamping exercise. The circuses are developing codes of conduct. Circus bodies such as PAWSIPerforming Animals Welfare Standards Internationalare in discussion with the Department. New regulations on animal husbandry in circuses are being developed by a DEFRA working group, which includes representatives from the Born Free Foundation, the RSPCA, the Animal Consultants and Trainers Association, the Kennel Club, the Arts Council, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Dogs Trust, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and so on.
	The news is extremely good. The approach that the Minister will set out to the House will, I think, commend itself to the House and to circuses. There have been some ludicrous situations in the past. In my home city, Worcester, a few years ago, when the city was under different political control, a circus applied to erect its tent, with only horses, in the middle of a race course. The local authority would not permit that because it considered that the circus was cruel to the animals. On that racecourse many horses will die every year. The bizarre hypocrisy of not allowing a circus, which relies on well trained and much loved horses, to set up in Pitchcroft in the middle of Worcester, while every year horses die on the race course around it, was extraordinary.
	I believe passionately that circus needs to be protected, defended articulately and supported, not demonised as it often is, or neglected. I quote from a marvellous article written in The Guardian by a journalist called Dea Birkett about seven years ago. She wrote:
	The circus people I met were not elephant-beating barbarians. They were a small, disenfranchised people, struggling to survive against odds that would have defeated almost anyone else. Animal-rights groupsincluding the RSPCAshould negotiate with people who travel, live and work with their animals. Instead of shouting outside the circus gates, instead of leaning on councils, they should sit down and talk. They should argue for better conditions in circuses. They should treat circus people as they treat all other people who keep animalsnot as freaks, but with respect. Our last travelling players should be cherished.
	I hope that what the Minister says to us in a few minutes will show that he is prepared to cherish those travelling players.

Ben Bradshaw: I apologise to those Conservative Members who served in Committee if I do not respond to their specific points, but I shall write to them. If they choose to intervene

Philip Hollobone: I am not sure whether this is an intervention, a point of order or merely an inquiry, but I have not had the chance to move my amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All that matters at this stage is that the lead amendment has been moved.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) moved new clause 2, which was supported by Conservative Front Benchers, and we take the issue seriously. Most of his speech dwelled on the problem of the trade in endangered species, but he will appreciate that the Animal Welfare Bill is not the best place to deal with the matter. CITES restricts the trade in endangered species, and if the trade is illegal, then it is illegal on the internet. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), has held constructive talks with Home Office Ministers about what more can be done to tighten up the hon. Gentleman's particular area of concern.
	The regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that we intend to address the issue, but we are not prepared to allow ourselves to be tied to the hon. Gentleman's time scale of making regulations within one year. If we were to tie ourselves to his time scale but were unable to achieve the objective, there is a danger that we would be unable to do anything at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that point and withdraws his new clause.

Mark Pritchard: Notwithstanding the Minister's comments, prosecutions are not being brought under the existing legislation. New clause 2 relates directly to third parties and internet service providers, which are aiding and abetting that illegal and evil practice. The Bill is an opportunity for the Government to stand by their warm words on animal welfare, and if they want to pass by that opportunity, then people outside this Chamber should know about it.

Ben Bradshaw: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I repeat that this is the Animal Welfare Bill, which does not cover the illegal trade in endangered species.
	Government amendment No. 61 fulfils a commitment that I made in Committee. The Government always intended that the concept of suffering, wherever it occurs in the Bill, should include both mental and physical suffering. We thought that point self-evident, so we did not include a definition in the Bill, but because of the unease expressed in Standing Committee, I agreed to table an amendment to put the meaning of the concept beyond doubt. Government amendment No. 61 defines suffering clearly, wherever it is mentioned in the Bill.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) drew our attention to the point that an inspector or constable could feasibly exercise his powers under clause 16 without the person responsible for the animal in question being aware of it, and we agree that that point requires rectification. That is why we tabled Government amendment No. 78, which requires an inspector or constable to notify a person responsible for the animal in question as soon as reasonably practicable.
	On new clause 6, I made it clear in Committee that we have not replicated the specific offence of abandonment, because it would be unnecessary. Abandonment is merely one way in which either the welfare offences or the cruelty offences can be committed. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has asked why we have made poisoning, mutilation and fighting special offences, but not abandonment. Those three offences do not necessarily involve suffering, which is why they are included separately. In Committee, we discussed administering heroin to a dog, mutilating an animal under anaesthetic and betting on an animal fight, all of which are offences. I also have concerns about the definition of abandonment in new clause 6, which we believe would risk catching the release of game birds or fish into a stream or pond or the release of animals on to common land. I am sure that Conservative Members do not want to prevent those activities.

Bill Wiggin: rose

Ben Bradshaw: I will not give way, because I have very little time left.
	From our proceedings in Committee and today, we are well aware of how strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) feels about circuses. I hope that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) were reassured by the written statement on the use of animals in travelling circuses that I gave the House last Wednesday. For the benefit of hon. Members who have not read the statement, it contained an undertaking to use a regulation under clause 10 of the Bill to ban the use of certain non-domesticated species in travelling circuses and to impose zoo standards on circuses' permanent premises.
	As I have previously indicated, I sympathise with the view that performances by some non-domesticated species in travelling circuses are not compatible with meeting their welfare needs. I have also said that the welfare offence in clause 8 will be a significant step forward for circus animals, as it will for all animals. However, having listened carefully to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members on Second Reading and in Committee, I have concluded that a regulation under clause 10 will provide much needed clarity to both circus proprietors and enforcers on which animals' needs can be met adequately in a travelling circus environment. I have also undertaken to see that there is read-across between zoo standards and those for circuses' permanent premises. I trust that that undertaking will address my hon. Friends' concerns.

Shona McIsaac: I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has said following his statement to the House. Will he give us clarification on the timingsI understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has asked a similar question? I think that the statement said that the Minister would be undertaking consultation shortly, so will he give me some time scales? Will zoo licensing regulations also read-across to static circuses?

Ben Bradshaw: I have already addressed static circuses. As I said in Committee, when we consider time scales, we will want to make the matter a priority.
	Amendment No. 2 relates to responsibility for a stolen animal. As I explained to the hon. Member for Leominster in Committee, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. More than one person can be responsible for an animal. Just because an owner is responsible for an animal, it does not mean that someone else who is in charge of the animal is not considered to be responsible for it, even if that responsibility is temporary, as is the case for a stolen animal. The person or persons responsible are required to take such steps as are reasonable to ensure the animal's welfare. Clearly, if someone's animal has been stolen, there are few such steps that that person could reasonably be expected to take.
	Amendment No. 107 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). While I have the chance, may I give him my thanks and express my regret at his departure from the Front Bench? He has made an important contribution to the Bill and the cause of animal welfare in general. I have appreciated the co-operative way in which he has worked with me and the hon. Member for Leominster on the Bill.
	We explored the question of protecting property at considerable length in Committee. I note that I have succeeded in persuading the hon. Member for Lewesa bit, at leastthat there are legitimate considerations in some situations. As I said in Committee, the protection of property is not an absolute defence against the offence of cruelty, but one factor that a court may take into account. That does not indicate a belief on my part that property rights should somehow trump animal suffering. It simply reflects the reality that the protection of property might justify some animal suffering in certain circumstances. I cited the example of the use of riot horses by the police in Committee and clearly the hon. Gentleman has accepted that. I also gave the Committee the example of guard dogs that are used by private individuals to protect their homes or businesses. Sometimes, unfortunately, a guard dog will be injured by a person who threatens a property. For example, a burglar might hit a dog when it restrains him. In principle, that person could be held responsible for its suffering by virtue of clause 4(2). I hope that hon. Members will agree that that is an example of the protection of property being a legitimate purpose outside the police and armed forces.

Norman Baker: Just as the Minister successfully constructed a list of tightly drawn exemptions for tail docking, why could he not construct tightly constrained exemptions to limit the use of the protection of property as a defence?

Ben Bradshaw: Because it is best to leave that up to the discretion of the courts.
	On amendment No. 108, I understand the motives of those who want a complete ban on giving an animal as a prize, but the Government have taken the view that it would be overly intrusive to dictate that an adult is not capable of making an informed and responsible decision about their ability to care for an animal on offer. As long as an adult is ultimately responsible for the decision to enter a competition in which an animal might be won, the Government do not feel that it is proper to interfere.
	Amendment No. 17 would create a requirement for a vet to see an animal after it had been seized under clause 16. I can understand what the hon. Member for Leominster is trying to achieve. In practice, however, if an inspector removes an animal in a hurry because it is suffering or likely to suffer, and it is not reasonably practicable to wait for a vet, I cannot envisage a situation whereby he would then retain the animal without seeking veterinary advice. Indeed, if a person takes a suffering animal into their care under clause 16(6), they have, in effect, assumed responsibility for it, and they might fail to meet their obligations under clause 8 if they do not take it straight to a vet for attention and advice. We do not therefore think it necessary to include such a requirement in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 18 deals with certifying that there would be no prosecution before an animal is disposed of. As I explained in Committee, an order can be made under clause 18 before a conviction is obtained or before a prosecution is started. In fact, an order can be made if a prosecution never takes place. A prosecution can take months to come to a conclusion, and it is sometimes necessary to take a decision about an animal's future without waiting that long. In some cases, a prosecution will not be in the public interest at allfor example, where the animal's owner is elderly or mentally impairedbut it will nevertheless be necessary to take a decision about the fate of the animal. That is what clause 18 allows.
	Amendment No. 23 would reduce the time limit for prosecutions from three years to 12 months. As I explained in Committee, three years was chosen to reflect the Animal Health Act 2002, which inserted an extension to three years of the time limit in the Animal Health Act 1981. We believe that it is sensible to impose the same time limit for a welfare offence prosecution as for prosecutions of offences relating to animal health. There are precedents in more than 60 other pieces of legislation covering subjects such as agriculture, food safety and trades descriptions for a long-stop prosecution period of three years in place of the usual six months in summary cases.
	The RSPCA told us of a case two years ago in which one of its inspectors found a dead dog in a cupboard under the stairs. The owner of the house admitted that he had starved the dog to death. However, because a vet estimated that the dog had died more than six months previously, the RSPCA was unable to prosecute. We do not believe that it is right that a person should get away with such animal cruelty simply because he has been successful in hiding the evidence or the evidence does not come to light quickly.
	Amendments Nos. 22 and 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster, would create a two-tier system of offences whereby offences under clauses 8, 10, 11 and 30(9) would be subject to a time limit of one year, and more serious offences would be triable either way and therefore not subject to any time limit. They would also impose a maximum penalty of a level 5 fine and 51 weeks' imprisonment. My Department has considered very carefully where the balance needs to be struck in terms of which court should handle cruelty cases and what the penalties should be. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that we should treat those who cause animal suffering more harshly than we do currently. However, we are already increasing the fines that a magistrate can impose. Moreover, it is important that in offering animals the protection that they need and deserve under our law, we maintain consistency with other criminal offences.

Justine Greening: Does the Minister agree that a 13-week maximum custodial sentence for the worst cases of animal cruelty is insubstantial and insufficient, and sends out exactly the wrong message to organised criminals who are engaging in offences such as cruelty and dog-fighting?

Ben Bradshaw: As we discussed in Committee, it is not strictly the case that the penalty would be a maximum of 13 weeksnot, at least, until custody plus is introduced. If sentences were served consecutively, they could be longer. The main point is that we are quadrupling the maximum fine and doubling the maximum custodial sentence. Existing penalties that magistrates imposed on the 800 cases that were brought before them under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000 do not suggest a need to increase the maximum limit. Courts are not using existing powers. We explored that point at some length in Committee.
	We are also advised that increasing sentences beyond what the Bill proposes would be disproportionate and inconsistent with our handling of offenders who have committed other offences.
	Amendment No. 109 tackles some but not all the arguments that I presented in Committee. With respect to the hon. Member for Lewes, I do not agree that we have got the definition wrong. As soon as we try to define private dwelling, we have to strike a balance. The question of which part of someone's property should be considered their private dwelling will always be a matter of degree. It is not possible to make a definition so watertight that there will be no borderline cases. The hon. Gentleman had such a borderline case in mind: a dog in a garden that an inspector can see from the public path outside the house. The amendment deals with one of the points that I made in Committee, namely that an emergency could only be perceived and that we could not run the risk of allowing unfettered access to private homes when emergencies were only perceived.
	However, I do not agree that the visibility of an animal changes the balance of interests. If someone can clearly see my animal through my front-room window, should that change the balance of interests? Whether it is in my garden or in my front room, it is on my private property. Either way, my animal is suffering or likely to suffer. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to force my front door to get to my animal in the front room, he would need a warrant. There is no difference between the two examples, either to my interests or my animal's, so why make the distinction?
	I understand that there are enduring concerns about the definition but the balance must be struck somewhere and we are satisfied that we have got it right. There will be difficult cases but that is inevitable and the police have reassured us that acquiring a warrant will not be a significant problem when there is a clear case.
	The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) did not have an opportunity to speak about amendment No. 1, so I shall deal with it and then give him a chance to intervene in the remaining two or three minutes. When the Gambling Act 2005 was debated, consideration was given to attaching minimal welfare provisions to the future licensing regime for greyhound tracks. Hon. Members will know that the Joint Committee on the Gambling Bill did not recommend that animal welfare issues should be included in the measure, despite receiving representations on that. Such provisions were not included because the Bill was on the horizon. It is more appropriate for tackling greyhound welfare and we intend to do that through the delegated powers in it.

Philip Hollobone: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his generosity, which is much appreciated. However, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stated:
	We are unconvinced by the argument that the greyhound racing industry should be allowed until 2010 to regulate itself and improve its own welfare standards.
	Amendment No. 1, which has cross-party support, would amend the Gambling Act to ensure that proper greyhound welfare standards were introduced through the Bill. If I am lucky enough to test the opinion of the House, I hope that there will be a vote in favour of the amendment.

Ben Bradshaw: As I said to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, we intend the Bill to improve the welfare of greyhounds. Indeed, the welfare offence will improve not only greyhounds' welfare but that of all animals before any regulation is introduced under secondary legislative powers. We have not ruled out regulating greyhound tracks if self-regulation proves not to work. As I said in Committee, we are keen to try to bring that process forward from 2010 if possible. I simply repeat that it is not the Gambling Commission's role to regulate animal welfare. That is why we believe that the amendment is perhaps not the most sensible way of proceeding.
	Did the hon. Member for The Wrekin wish to intervene?

Mark Pritchard: I thank the Under-Secretary for giving me the opportunity but I was hoping for a longer opportunity at the end of the debate.

Ben Bradshaw: I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Mark Pritchard: I am very disappointed by the Government's response. There is a genuine opportunity for the House to send a clear signal to those who would trade in endangered animals on the internet that it will no longer be tolerated. They will be hunted down, just as they hunt down animals, prosecuted and sent to prison for peddling this evil trade.
	I am also disappointed that, for Labour Members, there is a whipped vote against my new clause. However, Conservative Members have a free vote, which I welcome.

David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said earliernamely that it would not be his intention to cause any restriction on the sale of cattle or other farm animals, other than via markets?

Mark Pritchard: The fact is that there are people who trade in animals on the internet legally, although I would hope that any new clause that is accepted would ensure that the transport of such animals improves. Zoologists trade in endangered animals on the internet, but they have licences to do so.
	New clause 2 addresses the growing problem of the sale of endangered animals on the internet. Serious criminals are using the internet for these purposes. I am disappointed to see the Minister shake his head, because we had discussions on animal welfare issues before I came into the House. I know that he sits uncomfortably next to his colleague, the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, this evening by ruling out acceptance of my new clause.
	The fact is that the next time we open our newspapers and see another case of an endangered animal being abused and perhaps dying in transit

Ben Bradshaw: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I repeat that the trade in endangered species has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill. That is covered by existing laws.

Mark Pritchard: The Minister's complacency is astonishing. The fact is that there have been only two prosecutions under the existing legislation to which he refers, yet the trade globally is worth 25 billion a year, and the trade from United Kingdom websites is worth tens of millions. So to suggest that existing legislation is catching these criminals does not give the full picture[Hon. Members: It is misleading.] Well, I would not go that far. I know that the Minister is serious about animal welfare, so it is a mystery to me why he is not supporting the new clause. Have the Government been got at by internet service providers? I do not think so. I would not say that. However, the fact is that the next time we open our newspapers and read about cruelty to those endangered animals that we enjoy watching on documentaries while sitting comfortably at home, we will realise that we have missed an opportunity this evening. Members of animal welfare charities across the nation know that this has been a missed opportunity. This is an important Bill, and we might not have another opportunity to put such a clause into legislation. I feel let down, and I am sure that many other hon. Members feel let down. The endangered animals that are coming into our country across borders from around the world will certainly feel let down as well. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend mentioned missed opportunities. Animal welfare Bills come along only once every 100 years, and unless the House takes the decision tonight properly to regulate the greyhound industry, the chance will have been lost to transform the fate of 30,000 greyhounds7,500 of which disappear every yearperhaps for another 100 years.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend makes some valid points indeed, and I know that Labour Members will want to seize this opportunity. My new clause has cross-party support and my ten-minute Bill had cross-party support, so why are the Labour Whips preventing the new clause from being supported by those Members who previously supported my ten-minute Bill?
	We all read our newspapers, and I refer to animal welfare stories that come across our desks every single day. I hope that Labour Members who feel that they have perhaps been bullied by the Whips might reconsider. I applaud the courage of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in the face of the onslaught from his own side.
	The fact is that this is a serious and growing issue, and I hope that the Government will reconsider their position. How can they have introduced such serious legislation to address such serious animal welfare issues and yet not have included a clause on such an obvious difficulty? This is a multi-million pound industry that is being driven by serious criminals, and we know that the problem is increasing because of wildlife crime statistics.
	I am disappointed in the Government. The new clause is not heresy; it is a reasonable suggestion. I hope they will reconsider.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 280.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being more than five hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clause 5
	  
	Mutilation

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 3, line 25, at end insert
	'( )   Nothing in this section applies to the removal of the whole or any part of a dog's tail.'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 7
	  
	Fighting etc

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 4, line 3, leave out 'arranges' and insert 'causes'.
	No. 63, in page 4, line 3, at end insert
	'to take place, or attempts to do so'.
	No. 64, in page 4, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 65, in page 4, line 5, at end insert
	'( )   knowingly receives money for admission to an animal fight;'.
	No. 66, in page 4, line 5, at end insert
	'(   )   knowingly publicises a proposed animal fight;'.
	No. 67, in page 4, line 5, at end insert
	'(   )   provides information about an animal fight to another with the intention of enabling or encouraging attendance at the fight;'.
	No. 68, in page 4, line 9, at end insert
	'(   )   has in his possession anything designed or adapted for use in connection with an animal fight with the intention of its being so used;'.
	No. 69, in page 4, line 9, at end insert
	'(   )   keeps or trains an animal for use for in connection with an animal fight;'.
	No. 70, in page 4, line 9, at end insert
	'(   )   keeps any premises for use for an animal fight.'.
	No. 82, in page 4, line 10, after 'or' insert 'reasonable'.
	No. 83, in page 4, line 11, at end insert
	'(2A)   A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he
	(a)   knowingly supplies a video recording of an animal fight,
	(b)   knowingly publishes a video recording of an animal fight,
	(c)   knowingly shows a video recording of an animal fight to another, or
	(d)   possesses a video recording of an animal fight, knowing it to be such a recording, with the intention of supplying it.
	(2B)   Subsection (2A) does not apply if the video recording is of an animal fight that took place
	(a)   outside Great Britain, or
	(b)   before the commencement date.
	(2C)   Subsection (2A) does not apply
	(a)   in the case of paragraph (a), to the supply of a video recording for inclusion in a programme service;
	(b)   in the case of paragraph (b) or (c), to the publication or showing of a video recording by means of its inclusion in a programme service;
	(c)   in the case of paragraph (d), by virtue of intention to supply for inclusion in a programme service.
	(2D)   Provision extending the application of an offence under subsection (2A), so far as relating to the provision of information society services, may be made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (c.68) (powers to implement Community obligations by regulations) notwithstanding the limits imposed by paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to that Act on the penalties with which an offence may be punishable on summary conviction.'.
	No. 84, in page 4, line 14, at end insert
	'commencement date means the date on which subsection (2A) comes into force; information society services has the meaning given in Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce); programme service has the same meaning as in the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21); video recording means a recording, in any form, from which a moving image may by any means be reproduced and includes data stored on a computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion into a moving image.
	(   )   In this section
	(a)   references to supplying or publishing a video recording are to supplying or publishing a video recording in any manner, including, in relation to a video recording in the form of data stored electronically, by means of transmitting such data;
	(b)   references to showing a video recording are to showing a moving image reproduced from a video recording by any means.'[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 14
	  
	Making Codes of Practice: Wales

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 8, line 9, leave out from 'force' to end of line 10 and insert
	'in accordance with its provisions.'.
	No. 80, in page 8, line 11, leave out
	'An order under subsection (3)'
	and insert
	'A code (or revised code)'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 16
	  
	Powers in Relation to Animals in Distress

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 9, line 17, at end insert
	'(   )   If a person exercises a power under this section otherwise than with the knowledge of a person who is responsible for the animal concerned, he must, as soon as reasonably practicable after exercising the power, take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to bring the exercise of the power to the notice of such a person.'[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 19
	  
	Seizure of Animals Involved in Fighting Offences

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 10, line 41, leave out from 'that' to 'an' in line 42 and insert
	'it is one in relation to which'.
	No. 85, in page 10, line 42, after '7' insert '(1) or (2)'.
	No. 72, in page 10, line 42, at end insert 'has been committed'.
	No. 73, in page 11, line 15, leave out from 'animal' to 'an' in line 16 and insert 'in relation to which'.
	No. 86, in page 11, line 16, after '7' insert '(1) or (2)'.
	No. 74, in page 11, line 16, after '7' insert 'has been committed'.
	No. 75, in page 11, line 17, at end insert
	'(   )   In this section, references to an animal in relation to which an offence under section 7(1) or (2) has been committed include an animal which took part in an animal fight in relation to which such an offence was committed.'[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 20
	  
	Entry and Search Under Warrant in Connection with Offences

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 11, line 30, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails],'[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 21
	  
	Entry for Purposes of Arrest

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 11, line 36, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 87, in page 11, line 36, after 'to' insert '6 and'.
	No. 88, in page 11, line 36, after '7' insert '(1) and (2)'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 29
	  
	Imprisonment or Fine

Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 14, line 3, leave out from 'liable' to end of line 7 and insert
	'(a)   on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding 20,000, or to both;
	(b)   on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding 20,000, or to both.'.[Bill Wiggin.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 325.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 29
	  
	Imprisonment or Fine

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 14, line 3, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 30
	  
	Deprivation

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 14, line 25, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 31
	  
	Disqualification

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 16, line 15, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2),'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 34
	  
	Destruction in the Interests of the Animal

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 17, line 36, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 89, in page 17, line 36, after first 'to' insert
	'6, 7(1) and (2) and'.
	No. 90, in page 18, line 24, after '7' insert '(1) or (2)'. .[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 35
	  
	Destruction Of Animals Involved In Fighting Offences

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 18, line 28, after '7' insert '(1) or (2)'
	No. 76, in page 19, line 9, leave out second 'an' and insert 'the'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 36
	  
	Reimbursement of Costs Relating to Animals Involved in Fighting Offences

Amendment made: No. 92, in page 19, line 14, after '7' insert '(1) or (2)'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 37
	  
	Forfeiture of Equipment Used in Offences

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 19, line 23, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 46, in page 19, line 34, at end insert
	'(ba)   in the case of a conviction for an offence under section [Docking of dogs' tails](1) or (2), to anything designed or adapted for removing the whole or any part of a dog's tail;'.
	No. 93, in page 19, line 38, after '7' insert '(1) or (2)'.
	No. 77, in page 19, line 39, after 'in' insert 'connection with'.
	No. 94, in page 19, line 39, at end insert
	'(e)   in the case of a conviction for an offence under section 7(2A), to a video recording of an animal fight, including anything on or in which the recording is kept.'.
	No. 47, in page 19, line 44, after 'paragraphs' insert '(ba) and'.
	No. 95, in page 19, line 44, leave out '(d)' and insert '(e)'. .[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 39
	  
	Orders with Respect to Licences

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 20, line 36, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2),'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 42
	  
	Deprivation Orders in Connection with Offence Under Section 41(2)

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 22, line 41, after 'provided' insert '(orally or in writing)'. .[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 43
	  
	Seizure Orders Where Disqualification Breached: Scotland

Amendments made: No. 97, in page 23, line 38, after 'provided' insert '(orally or in writing)'.
	No. 98, in page 24, line 2, at end insert
	'(8A)   When an application is made under subsection (2)(a), the court may make an order under this subsection (an interim order) containing such provision as the court considers appropriate in relation to the keeping of an animal until the application is finally determined.
	(8B)   Subsections (4), (5)(a) and (8) apply in relation to an interim order as they apply in relation to a seizure order.'. .[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 44
	  
	Appeals Against Deprivation Orders and Seizure Orders

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 24, line 15, leave out from 'may' to end of line 16 and insert
	'appeal to the High Court of Justiciary against the order by the same procedure as applies under subsection (1) in relation to a deprivation order.'.
	No. 100, in page 24, line 17, leave out from the beginning to 'may' in line 18 and insert
	'The disqualified person by reference to whom a seizure order is made, or any person (apart from that disqualified person) who entered the process prior to the making of the order,'.
	No. 101, in page 24, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
	No. 102, in page 24, line 28, leave out 'an' and insert
	'a deprivation order or seizure'.
	No. 103, in page 24, line 28, after '(5),' insert
	'or such an order is not executable because decree has not been extracted,'.
	No. 104, in page 24, line 32, at end insert 'or inexecutable'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 45
	  
	Deprivation Orders, Seizure Orders and Interim Orders: Offences

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 25, line 16, after 'section' insert '43(8A) or'. [Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 56
	  
	Orders and Regulations

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 29, line 24, after 'Act' insert
	', except the power under section 15(1) of the National Assembly for Wales,'.
	No. 49, in page 29, line 26, after '5(4),' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails](11),'. .[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 57
	  
	General Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 30, line 9, at end insert
	'suffering means physical or mental suffering and related expressions shall be construed accordingly;'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Schedule 3
	  
	Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 39, line 16, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 51, in page 39, line 31, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 52, in page 40, line 17, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 53, in page 40, line 25, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 54, in page 40, line 35, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 55, in page 41, line 4, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 56, in page 41, line 21, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 57, in page 41, line 26, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 58, in page 41, line 30, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 59, in page 41, line 34, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.
	No. 60, in page 41, line 37, after 'sections' insert
	'[Docking of dogs' tails] (1) and (2) and'.[Mr. Bradshaw.]
	Order for Third Reading read.[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The hour is late, we have discussed many weighty matters in the course of this afternoon and evening and I think that the House would prefer it if I kept my remarks brief. I start by acknowledging a satisfying, but not altogether common, feature of our deliberations this afternoon, this evening and over the past few weeks, which is that the Bill has benefited from substantial cross-party support. The Opposition parties did not divide the House on Second Reading, and they have played a constructive hand during the detailed consideration of the Bill. We have had a good and rational debate, and Members on both sides have made important contributions. That good atmosphere enabled the Government to listen and, I hope Members will agree, improve the Bill in several important respects.
	I pay tribute to all Members who participated in debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The debates have been conducted with good humour and in a positive spirit. I thank Members on both sides of the House, Back Benchers and others, particularly the hon. Members for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), as well as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) who has recently announced his, I hope, temporary retirement from his party's Front Bench. He will be missed, particularly on issues of animal welfare. I also thank the hon. Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) for chairing the Committee proceedings with such skill and verve. We should also thank the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, chaired by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), for its work on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I also thank the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), under whose stewardship the Bill saw its conception. I am sure that all Members of the House will acknowledge his long-standing and valuable contribution to furthering animal welfare in this country. I also acknowledge the support of the members of my team in DEFRA. They were superb. They worked long and hard hours to bring the Bill to this stage and I fear that they have more such hours ahead of them.
	This is an historic day for the welfare of animals in this country. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill Wiggin: The Bill has been four years in the making and I have followed it closely since the beginning. I was a member of the Select Committee that scrutinised an earlier draft of the Bill and I saw the current Bill through Standing Committee on behalf of the Opposition.
	The Conservative party has always supported what we see as the Bill's primary intentions: updating and consolidating a century of fragmented and outdated legislation, and introducing the positive duty of care. We recognise the importance of the legislation and have taken every opportunity to work consensually and constructively with Members on both sides of the House. Moreover, the scientific evidence to which I attach so much importance is such that legislation founded on it will always transcend political divides.
	With that in mind, I pay tribute to the role played by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), in making the legislation possible. It was his first Bill and I congratulate him on the result. He was always prepared to welcome comment and counsel and subsequently to change his position. In any other Minister that could easily have been misconstrued as uncertainty or indecision, but not in the hon. Gentleman. He listened to advice about statutory improvement notices, allowed me to convince him of its merits and changed Government policy accordingly. I have no hesitation in thanking him publicly.
	The hon. Gentleman listened carefully to the case for expanding the fighting offence in clause 7 to include all those with involvement in animal fights. At the behest of the Opposition, he added provisions to improve procedures under clause 16 for notifying owners that their animal is in distress. He allowed colleagues to persuade him to resolve the future of tail docking on the face of the Bill rather than, as he planned, through secondary legislation. He proved to be flexible about expanding the definition of suffering to include mental as well as physical harm.
	If the hon. Gentleman continues to legislate in that constructive manner, and allows Parliament to scrutinise his proposals, I shall look forward to working with him again. Furthermore, other Ministers could do a lot worse than to learn from him.
	I thank all members of the Standing Committee, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and all Members who spoke. I also thank the Chairmen of the Committee, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), the Select Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), and all the people outside this place who so assiduouslyindeed, copiouslywrote in with their views.
	Tonight, we shall send the Bill to the other place and their lordships will be grateful for the hard work and effort made by the Chamber and for the improvements that we are proud to have made.

David Drew: I, too, express praise for my hon. Friend the Minister. He certainly listened and went further than some of us anticipated on tail docking, allowing us a full debate even if, in my opinion, we came to slightly the wrong conclusionwe live to fight another day.
	My hon. Friend has made it clear throughout that he did not want the Bill to become a Christmas tree Billas he described itto which we could all stick our baubles. I look forward to the resolution of issues such as electric shock collars, snares and the keeping of primates as pets.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend lists some of the unresolved matters, but as a fellow member of the Select Committee, does he agree by and large that the Bill is a shining example of what can be done with pre-legislative scrutiny in achieving a relatively uncontroversial Bill with the wide consensual support of the House? Does he agree that the Government should use pre-legislative scrutiny much more as the Bill is a classic example of that working at its best?

David Drew: I agree. I took part in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill as well as serving on the Standing Committee. I thank all Members who took part. One of the most interesting things was that Government Members probably talked for as long as Opposition Members, which must be unique. In doing so, I hope that we were able to make our points. No party can claim the monopoly of righteousness on this matter so it is right that Back Benchers should make proposals, even if we did not get them to exactly the point we wanted. However, the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister will want to continue that work in due course, and I hope that the measure makes progress and that a good Bill comes back from the Lords.

Norman Baker: I thank all members of the Committee and the Minister for his constructive approach to the Bill. At the beginning of its passage, I drew his attention to the way that his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), had dealt with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill in a constructive and consensual manner, which had improved it. The Minister has followed that path, emulated his colleague and we have a better Bill. I congratulate him on the way he has brought the Bill through Committee and to the House. As I told the Minister's colleague, when Ministers listen and amend Bills, it is a sign of strength, not of weakness. I congratulate the Minister on proposing a Bill that was good to start with, and is better as a consequence of the amendments that have been made in Committee and on Report.
	I congratulate the Conservative Front Benchersthe hon. Members for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)on their approach to the Bill, as well as Labour Back Benchers on theirs, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Those hon. Members who have served on many Standing Committees are used to seeing massed ranks of statues behind Ministersthe Labour Back Benchers who say nothing and sit there doing their casework for days on end. On this occasion, without exception, the Labour Back Benchers who served on the Committee took part and made some constructive comments. Generally, the Bill was considered more fully and sensibly as a consequence of their efforts as well, and I hope that Labour Back Benchers will take a lesson from that and apply it elsewhere.

Anne Snelgrove: Labour Back Benchers always make constructive comments; we do not necessarily make them in public.

Norman Baker: On grounds of accountability and democracy, I encourage the hon. Lady to make her comments in public in futureobviously, we could then all hear what was being said and we might even agree with it. The example set by the Bill is one that should be followed in future.
	It is a good Bill. It is not perfect, of course. There are issues with which we disagreeit would be extraordinary if we did notand I hope that some of the issues to which the hon. Member for Stroud referred will be dealt with under secondary legislation. I understand the comments about Christmas trees, but we have taken on trust the Minister's assurance that measures will be introduced on a range of issues that people feel very strongly aboutwhether electric shock collars, greyhounds or the other issues that hon. Members have raised in the Chamber today and in Committeeand we want the Minister to deliver those assurances under secondary legislation and look forward to that happening.
	I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, under clause 63, there is a commitment to do nothing very much at all in implementing the Bill. We only have his word about thatI am happy to take his word, of coursebut we want further action to ensure that this enabling Bill, which we will shortly pass on to the other place, is acted on using statutory instruments in due course.
	Of course, I am particularly pleased about clause 8, which introduces the RSPCA's five freedoms and is the cornerstone of the Bill in many ways. It is very important indeed and will go a long way to ensure that some of the awful examples of cruelty, which the RSPCA and others have drawn to hon. Members' attention over many years, will be curtailed and can be properly prosecuted by the appropriate authorities when they are detected, often earlier than has been hitherto possible.
	This is the first Animal Welfare Bill for 95 years. Of course, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 was introduced by a Liberal Government. Obviously, animals have had to wait for another Liberal Government, which has not happened since those days, unfortunatelyso we have had to rely instead on a Labour Government to introduce another Bill to update that very important 1911 Act. I am pleased that the Government have done so. Animals will be better protected as a consequence of the Bill. I am also pleased that it has been possible to do so in a spirit of consensus and co-operation across all partiessomething of which we can be proud.
	Lastly, I thank the Minister for his kind comments and assure him that it is my intention that my departure from the Front Bench will be temporary.

Derek Conway: The hour is late and I shall be brief. The House has been genuinely congratulatory of the Minister, and those hon. Members who took part on Second Reading and watched the Committee in progress feel that he has made a particular contribution to the Bill. For those in the animal welfare lobby who have been arguing about bits of the Bill for nine years now, there was some doubt whether it would ever come to fruition. On Second Reading, we spoke about it being a Christmas tree Bill, which is why Conservative Members were always a bit scared of introducing such legislation when we were in power. I am very glad that the Conservative Front-Bench team has welcomed the Bill tonight and has been constructive as well.
	What the Minister has achieved is undoubtedly notable, and what the animal welfare charities will look for in the future is what happens with the regulations and how the Government respond. The one word of advice that I urge on him is that, both in the House and particularly among those who advise Ministers, there is the view that the only organisation that has a serious view on animal welfare interests in this country is the RSPCA. It is a really good organisation and, although it has its critics, it does a splendid job. The companion welfare charities, however, such as the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, with which I have been involved, take an interest in a single species, so their experience and knowledge tends to be much better than that which Ministers will find in the RSPCA. As regulations are introduced, I hope that the Minister will seek a wider input and look beyond that notable charity to charities with a specific interest in different types of animals. The Minister is rightly to be congratulated, and people working in animal welfare on a daily basis will not forget his contribution.

Philip Hollobone: I, too, congratulate the Minister on the Bill's passage through the House. I very much enjoyed serving on the Committee, and I am grateful for his comments. He will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed that he has not taken on board the seriousness with which greyhound welfare charities view the state of the greyhound industry. There are many well-organised greyhound tracks, as he knows, and the British Greyhound Racing Board has a good reputation. However, there are 20 or so unregistered greyhound tracks, and proper regard is not paid to the welfare of thousands of greyhounds. In this country, there are

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hate to intrude on the benign atmosphere on Third Reading, but I am bound to remind hon. Members, particularly the hon. Gentleman, that on Third Reading one must confine one's remarks, apart from the usual thanks, to the contents of the Bill, rather than the things that are not in the Bill.

Philip Hollobone: As always, I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is extraordinarily difficult in the House, especially for a new Member, to advance the cause of greyhound welfare. I have done my level best to try to make the Government listen to my concerns.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I always want to be helpful, particularly to new Members, so may I suggest the device of an Adjournment debate?

Philip Hollobone: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am genuinely pleased that the Government have introduced a Bill on animal welfare, but I hope that the limited provisions on greyhounds are applied.

Norman Baker: I wish to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, so can he explain how clause 8, which deals with the duty of people responsible for animals to ensure their welfare, applies to greyhounds?

Philip Hollobone: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and I believe that clause 8 would be helpful. In the Bill, the Government are looking at draft codes of conduct, so at this late stage may I urge the Minister to consider introducing an early draft code of conduct on greyhounds? That would be very much appreciated in the greyhound industry, and I hope that the issue is debated further when the Bill proceeds to the other place.

Peter Bone: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), with whom I very much agree.
	I wish to stick to a specific matter in the Bill. I congratulate the Government on introducing a very good welfare Bill, but I should also like to comment on the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) said, the RSPCA is not the only organisation that is worried about the welfare of animals. I have received a representation in my constituency from Mr. Andrew Meads, who runs Safe Wings. That unusual organisation protects wild birds, and injured birds are brought to the sanctuary from miles around. They are housed and rehabilitated before being released into the wild. Unfortunately, the Bill was not designed to take that unusual project into account, which may well have to close because of the licensing arrangements. Mr. Meads is concerned that unless there is a light regulatory touch that wonderful bird sanctuary will have to close. I hope that that will be considered in the other place.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two motions.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Disabled Persons

That the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Gatwick Express Class 458 Vehicles) Exemption Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.[Mr. Dhanda.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Air Traffic Management

That this House take note of European Union Document No. 15143/05 and Addendum 1, Commission Communication and draft Council Regulation on the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR); and endorses the Government's prudent approach to the Commission's proposals, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum.[Mr. Dhanda.]
	Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 30th March 2006, do adjourn till Tuesday 18th April 2006.[Mr. Dhanda.]
	Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee sittings)),
	  That
	(1) the matter of the Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 28th March at half-past four o'clock; and
	(3) at that sitting
	(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
	(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the matter referred to the Committee; and
	(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).[Mr. Dhanda.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	Sentencing Guidelines

Nia Griffith: I am grateful for the opportunity to present a petition. It concerns the very serious issue of the deliberate manslaughter of Stuart McKibbin. I record my thanks and that of the McKibbin family for the support shown to them by the petitioners, the local press and Peter Lewis from Support After Murder and Manslaughter.
	The petitioners declare that the sentence passed for the manslaughter of Stuart McKibbin is inadequate and further declare that, despite taking a life, the perpetrator could be freed after serving only three and a half years of a seven-year sentence.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Home Secretary to refer the sentencing guidelines for manslaughter to the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

WIND FARMS (NORTHUMBERLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Dhanda.]

Alan Beith: The House seems to be returning to its old ways. This is the second night running that I have taken part in an Adjournment debate after 11.15 pm, but I am nevertheless glad of the opportunity to raise the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in wind farm applications in Northumberland.
	Northumberland is facing a massive wave of applications for wind farms, with a heavy concentration of applications in the stretch of beautiful open countryside that lies between Berwick and Alnwick, and further clusters of applications or potential applications around the boundaries of my constituency at Ellington, Lynemouth and Longhirst, around Longhorsley, and around Kirkwhelpington, which lies over the boundary in the neighbouring Hexham constituency. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is present tonight.
	Those sites lie in the areas of four planning authorities. I have so far counted four actual and one potential application in Berwick borough, one actual and three potential applications in Alnwick district, one actual and seven potential applications in Castle Morpeth, and two over the border in Tynedale. A total of almost 200 turbines is in prospect in or alongside my constituency, with further applications over in the Kielder area. Even many constituents who are sympathetic to the development of wind power have found this a bewildering and daunting prospect.
	The Department of Trade and Industry has several roles in relation to these applications. First, it takes to itself the decision on wind farms with an installed capacity of 50 MW or more. So far this includes the Middlemoor application, north of Alnwick, and the Ray estate proposal near Kirkwhelpington. Secondly, it has a role alongside the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister if an application below that size is the subject of an appeal against local authority refusal. Obviously, any of the sites may be the subject of such an appeal following a local planning authority refusal, and then the issue would be taken out of the hands of the local community.
	Thirdly, the DTI is responsible for Government energy policy, for delivering on the Government's renewables targets, and indeed for the incentives that have encouraged so many companies to put in applications for wind farms, which many people would see as a conflict of interest with its role in the planning process. I shall consider each of those aspects of the Department's role.
	A question ought to be raised about why the DTI is taking decisions at all in cases such as Middlemoor. The power under which this is happening was, I suspect, included in the Electricity Act 1989 to make it easier for major strategic power plants to get approval. Even if that could be justifiedI served in Committee on the 1989 Act, where we sought to amend those provisionsit hardly seems appropriate to use the 1989 Act to separate a few wind farm applications from the rest for central consideration without a proper local planning decision. Because wind power is intermittent, the average output of a 50 MW wind farm is probably less than 20 MW. Why does the Minister not hand the planning responsibility for Middlemoor back to Alnwick district council, which is the local planning authority? Why not let local people decide?
	If the DTI insists on making the decision, the local planning authority can insist on a public inquiry, but central Government will still make the decision, which seems completely inappropriate. Incidentally, I understand that this week the DTI asked Alnwick district council to defer consideration of its views on Middlemoor while further information is sought from the developer. Perhaps the Minister will tell me what that is all about.
	When the DTI deals with an application, how does it assess local opinion? There are differing views on the various applications in Northumberland, but a number of them, including Middlemoor, have attracted vigorous opposition. The DTI's process of inviting comments by an early date has not left people with the feeling that they have had a fair hearing or that their views are being taken seriously. Furthermore, the Middlemoor and Ray applications need to be seen in the context that I have described, because so many applications are coming forward. How can the DTI rule on the Middlemoor application without knowing what Berwick borough council will decide on the nearby Wandylaw application or the three sites further north?
	What frightens many people is the prospect of a chain of five or more sites with more than 60 turbines stretching through the countryside west of the A1 from Alnwick to Berwick, all visible from popular viewpoints such as Ros castle and the Cheviot hills. Tourism is now of crucial importance to jobs and businesses in Northumberland, and, although I do not accept the argument that every wind farm necessarily poses a threat to tourism, a development on anything like this scale would totally change the landscape and views that tourists come to enjoy. The Minister must tell us how he will prevent a situation in which he takes a decision on the Middlemoor site without regard to the risk of a ribbon development of wind farms.

Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The chain will be even longer than that, because it will run from the A68 to the A1. We could end up with a chain of turbines running right across some of the most beautiful landscapes in Northumberland.

Alan Beith: That is a genuine concern. People who would judge one application on its merits are seriously worried about the cumulative effect.
	If the local planning authorities decide to refuse most of the major applications in the area, will they face having their decisions overturned by the combined forces of the DTI and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on appeal? In that respect, they have taken some encouragement from the Minister's acceptance of the inspector's decision to refuse a major wind farm application at Whinash in Cumbria, but will the Cumbrian refusal make refusals in Northumberland less likely, so as to keep up with the targets?
	Critics of the wind farm plans see such developments against the background that the DTI leads on energy policy. The DTI has targets to meet10 per cent. of energy use from renewables by 2010 and 20 per cent. by 2020. It has chosen to place very heavy emphasis within renewables on onshore wind power to meet those targets, despite the potential of wave and tidal power, solar power, geothermal power and biomass.
	This week, I have received representations about the withdrawal of DTI and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding from the community renewables initiative. That will directly hit the REALL organisation in Northumberland, which supports and enables community renewable energy projects in the very villages that are most likely to be affected by the wind farm proposals, such as ground force heat pumps in Lowick and Etal.
	While those incentives are being removed without anything being promised in their place to promote community renewables, the incentive for the generating companies to go for the wind power option seems to have been set too high. There is a lot of scope for the use of wind power in micro-power projects. The smaller windmills powering local businesses or groups of houses gain much readier public acceptance, and some such schemes are under discussion, but we need a more broadly based renewables strategy. For the Department that has locked itself into wind power targets to decide local planning decisions strikes many of my constituents as wrong in principle and worrying in practice.
	I should also mention something that might influence the Minister more than it should: the regional spatial strategy. The strategy has been produced by the unelected regional assembly, so it has no democratic authority. Its proposals are fiercely contested on many grounds, some of which relate to housing. It is especially relevant for tonight's purposes that the strategy is contested, because of its designation of a significant part of Northumberland as having the potential for wind farm development.
	The draft strategy is at the consultation stage, and the Minister needs to be aware that major objections have been put in about the question of areas that are claimed to be suitable for wind farms. Some of the objections challenge the principles on which areas have been designated, while others challenge the technical accuracy of the work done on the strategy. The target that the assembly has set for wind power in Northumberland is three times what the national 10 per cent. target would suggest, so that, too, is being vigorously contested by many people who have put in objections to the strategy. At this stage, the Minister cannot rely on the draft, and much questioned, regional spatial strategy to justify a presumption in favour of applications at Middlemoor or elsewhere in Northumberland, so I hope that he will not attempt to do so.
	Many people accept that wind generation has a part to play, alongside other renewables, in reducing CO 2 emissions and developing a sustainable energy policy. Some people genuinely like the sight of wind turbines and do not find them too intrusive. For example, the wind turbines on the harbour wall at Blyth often get quite favourable comments. However, most people think that there are landscapes and views that are too attractive and distinctive for us to allow them to be fundamentally changed by the erection of turbines, pylons or a variety of other developments, and that a cumulative growth of wind turbines marching across many miles of countryside is something to be avoided.
	The process by which some decisions are taken by a central Department with a policy interest in approving wind farms, with others taken separately by neighbouring planning authorities, is not a satisfactory way of reconciling concerns and making good decisions. I would like local authorities to be able jointly to mount a public hearing at which all applications could be considered at the same time, without the involvement of the DTI. All local views could then be heard, as could the developers, and coherent decisions could be made by local planning authorities. It would be much better if the Minister would take a step back and persuade his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to help him to ensure that there are no obstacles to such a genuinely local process along the lines that I have suggested. Would it be possible to have an open hearing at which all views could be heard, but with the decision still taken locally, or is that too much to hope for?

Malcolm Wicks: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for giving me the opportunity to explain the role of the DTI in wind farm applications. He referred to the relative lateness of the hour, but I am bound to say that when I rose at 5 am to go to Brussels, this was always going to be the highlight of my dayI mean that most sincerely. I should make it clear that I am unable to comment, as he will understand, on individual applications, given the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role on consent decisions. However, I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is questioning that role.
	Let me say something about the statutory position. Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 gives the Secretary of State responsibility for decisions on development consents in England and Wales for onshore electricity generating stations, including wind farms, with a capacity above 50 MW. When granting such consents, he can also deem planning permission to be granted under section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Applications for generating stations up to 50 MW are dealt with by local planning authorities under the normal planning regime.
	The logic behind applications above 50 MW being determined by the DTI is that energy supply is of vital national importance. While that is generally recognised, there can also be a tendency for any local community to resist the location of energy infrastructure in their area. Clearly we need the infrastructure and it has to go somewhere. The right hon. Gentleman would soon be initiating an even grander debate if his constituents found that they were not getting an electricity supply, so there is a tension between the two requirements.
	As we need the infrastructure, the long-standing arrangement has been that central Government take decisions on projects above 50 MW. However, that is not to say that decisions on larger projects circumvent the planning system or that local people do not have a say. Local planning authorities are always consulted. Their views, and those of local communities, are taken into account by the Secretary of State, who also seeks advice from the relevant environment, nature, conservation and heritage bodies before taking a decision. Should a planning authority object, the Secretary of State is obliged under the 1989 Act to hold a public inquiry. Even if a planning authority does not object, he has the discretion to hold an inquiry in the light of other representations received. Were a public inquiry to be held, it would be presided over by an independent inspector, and those who wished to attend and give evidence would be invited to do so. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the inspector's latest judgment on Whinash, which the Secretary of State supported.
	As well as seeking inputs from local authorities on applications, my Department also has written advice and guidance to take into account. Planning policy statement 22 on renewable energy is particularly relevant to wind farms, as is PPS7 on sustainable development in rural areas. The same guidance is followed by the DTI and local planning authorities. There are also regional spatial strategies. Local authorities often have local development plans. Those only offer guidelines on what level of development might be appropriate, but where they exist they are clearly important factors in any decision. I am also aware that the north-east assembly and local authorities in the area have commissioned landscape capacity studies to help to inform decisions on wind farm applications in terms of their cumulative landscape impacts. Those, too, will provide an important input to decisions.
	Of course, undertaking any environmental impact assessment can be complex. That is particularly so for wind farms where there are several applications in the same region.

Alan Beith: I want to reinforce the point that I made in my earlier remarks. The regional spatial strategy that affects this region is still in draft and is fiercely contested, so the Minister ought not to rely heavily on its very controversial content.

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I hear that. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman might address the need of his constituents, and all our constituents, to have energy from somewhere, and that he might add what would be acceptable to him. Perhaps that is asking too much of an Adjournment debate.
	It is open to developers to acquire access to land and to submit their applications. That is in the nature of our planning system. As wind turbine technology advances, it becomes possible to site wind farms in areas where it was previously thought that the wind speeds were too low. Developers may then see potential in separate but nearby sites. Such situations raise questions as to whether allowing more than one of them to be built would create potential cumulative impacts, whether in terms of visual effects or other matters. There is an onus on the wind power industry to act sensibly in considering whether to submit applications in areas where others have already made them. It also makes sense for developers to co-operate in providing environmental impact assessments.
	However, it is a competitive industry, and while multiple applications can make life more complicated for regulators, they do not make it impossible. Any application submitted to my Department would have to include an environmental impact assessment that set out the applicant's view of the likely impacts of the project in its own right and its cumulative impacts with other projects. Those other projects could be operational, already consented or simply ahead in the planning queue.

Peter Atkinson: The problem that we face in my constituency is that we have an application for one large wind farm that will be determined by the DTI and other applications for another wind farm, some of the turbines of which will be on the site of the first wind farm. How on earth does the local authority reconcile that problem?

Malcolm Wicks: To debate that fully, we would have to introduce into the picture national energy security, the importance of securing our energy from somewhere and the balances that we need to strike.
	We do not require applicants to take account of proposals that are in the pipeline but not yet submitted. That would place an unfair burden on the applicant, as proposals not yet submitted might lead to an application. Details may be scanty and that could make it impossible to consider them in an environmental impact assessment.
	Further complications arise when multiple applications in an area come under both the Electricity Act 1989 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is not for the Secretary of State to try to influence decisions that properly fall to local authorities. Authorities will consider applications on the basis of the same guidance and advice as is available to the Department of Trade and Industry, but the decisions are up to them.
	When applications that could interact are made under both regimes and go to inquiry, they could be tackled by a single inquiry. The inspector would need to consider the individual merits of each application and the possible cumulative effects before making recommendations to the relevant decision makers.
	I shall not comment on whether all or any of the applications lodged in Northumberland might have cumulative impacts on each other. Some may be too far apart to have combined effects. However, officials in the Department have been working with applicants, local authorities and the Government office to ensure that the handling of those applications is fair and transparent.

Alan Beith: The Minister made a helpful point. He said that it is possible to hold a public inquiry that brings together an applicationor severalwith which the Department and the local authority are dealing and ensure that the inspector reports back to the respective decision makers. Is he willing to encourage the relevant authorities to take that approach to contiguous applications? Is the Department willing to co-operate with that?

Malcolm Wicks: As I said, that can sometimes make sense. Of course, it is also a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and we are trying to pursue that strategy when appropriate.
	We remain firmly committed to renewable energy. As the most advanced of the renewable technologies, wind power will continue to play an important role. As we consider our energy requirements and become a net importer of gaswe import 10 per cent. at the moment but 80 per cent. is projected to come from other countries by 2010we need to have some answers about the source of energy. Some people need to talk about yes, not no. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my pointing that out gently. The lateness of the hour probably means that I should not mention that Liberal Democrat spokespersons often urge me to accept that the answer is not nuclear or many other things but simply efficiency and renewables. The words, wind farms often pass their lips. If that is a principle, which many of us accept, we need to put it into practice from time to time. We cannot always take a not in my back yard position. I do not refer to the right hon. Gentleman's county, but I am trying gently to point to a dilemma as he urges us to reject wind turbines in his area.

Alan Beith: I did not say that we should reject all wind turbine applications. I tried to suggest that we need a process whereby decisions for large numbers of neighbouring applications can be considered carefully on their merits and not in a way that deprives local people of a key role in such decisions.

Malcolm Wicks: I must not trespass on particular decisions, but I assume that that means that the right hon. Gentleman is supporting certain applications. However, it would not be fair if I were to point to that dilemma more markedly than I have done.
	I do not expect the energy review, on which I am leading, to change the principles at the heart of the planning regime. In short, these are designed to ensure robust consideration of applications, which allows good projects in the right location to get approved. Sometimes, despite the controversy, the answer will be yes. Sometimes, however, as we have recently illustrated very graphically with the Whinash decision, when the answer should be no, we will be absolutely determined that the answer will be no.
	I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issues that particularly affect Northumberland, and for allowing us at least to consider in draft form some of the dilemmas that we are presented with when many people want to say no to all sorts of developments, although we are on the cusp in regard to energy security. We need some projects in our nation to go forward if we are to have energy security in the first half of the 21st century.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.